Think about it, we have the largest standing peacetime military in the world
America hasn't been at peace since the Korea war. Ever since then your troops have been involved in combat somewhere around the planet.
They expand and then collapse from their size, or the government goes into some kind of fascist or other ubercontrolled mode that simply cannot be sustained.
At least we are able to say that we were around to see it happen.
Now we are such a femalecentric bunch of wimps that will do anything because we are so scared of the boogieman.
That stragegy has worked for thousands of years. All the religions have used it, the Nazi's, the Israeli's, numerous other facists blah blah blah. Why change it?
When a government is willing to imprison an innocent man for defending himself from criminals, you should certainly expect a jump in crime.
That is a fucked up example. He shot someone in the back that was running away from his house, then let him bleed to death on his lawn before he was reported missing the next day.
There was no reason for him to fire and in most US states he would be facing charges for his actions.
Not that you are deliberately misleading people or anything. He shot someone in cold blood and let them die in one of the most horrible way imaginable. Hardly "innocent".
One might as well say that the real problem for Sony/Microsoft/etc. is that all their games FAIL to aim at kids. Why unecessarily limit your market like that?
Because they have little spending cash. You still get games aimed at the younger market on the other systems, it's just the focus that's different. Google for "Marketing".
MicroSony are making a mistake in focusing on today's markets to the exclusion of tomorrow's
You are so wrong. The media hub thing is going to happen. For many it's already happened (you can build your own), and MS and Sony will steal the show, though Apple might get a sneak in (minus the games) with some of their upcoming stuff. I've not heard Nintento talk about this sort of thing, and it might be just the thing that nails them. Game developers care primarily about one thing; the number of target boxes sitting under monitors/televisions. If the other two players in this game romp the market, Nintendo won't get the third-party games they are used to.
Of course, everyone in this discussion thinks I WANT Nintendo to fail going by the attitude in most replies! What the hell is wrong with you people?:-)
30, earning over that. Most folk I know have a PS2/Xbox/GC gen system, not one of them is into Mario or the like. Sports, driving, first-person, third-person etc all those kinds of things. Can't think of anyone that still has their Game Cube, but I know at least one who used to. I'm not talking hardcore gamers, just joe average, one system, 4-6 games.
30 year old boys want gameplay value, not mindless violence.
Just a couple of examples, jesus, what's with the pigeon-holeing? Not all the games I've listed are violent, but you gotta admit it does sell. Look at the movie box office, where many of the movies are restricted by ratings to only adults.
I'm talking games with thought and depth, not jumping platform to platform to save the ever distressed pricess. Yeah, Nintendo do have some games like that on their systems, but not to the level of Sony/MS. There's also the niche things like the iToy, I know at least 3/4 households who have bought a PS2 just for that and/or dance mats as well.
The people on Slashdot don't seem to realise they are in the minority. When something hits the mainstream, most manufacturers tend to go for main stream. This is why Sony is running away with it just now.
Why is it so hard to accept that prodominately child-like games is not a sound marketing strategy in an increasingly competative market? Sega have already bailed on a lot of things, and Nintendo are a shadow of themselves as well. Everyone needs to take a chill pill and stop getting so fucking up tight. It's a TOY!!
Agreed. They do have a place with those who have a fondness for Mario from previous gaming experience, but it's an ever dwindling market. I'm not saying throw away the francise entirely, but you need to change and evolve. People associate Nintendo with Mario, and that's not going to help them buy their way into your home media hub where the big market is going to be over the next 10 years or so.
Neither did my parents when they were 30 and they bought me a Nintendo NES. Trust me, Nintendo knows RIGHT what they're doing.
Sigh. Read what you wrote..."bought YOU". I'm talking about 30 year olds earning 40k+ buying shit for themselves. These folks grew up on gaming and aren't going to stop. Most want the likes of GTA and Resident Evil.
Nintendo make great games, don't get me wrong. But a fat plumber & turtles verses gangsters & zombies? Do yourself a favour and forget about that marketing job; it's not for you!;-)
I think Nintendo hears what you're saying, and tries to be creative in a lot of ways. That sort of gets overlooked, however, because they tend to then brand all of their ideas with their big franchises, Mario being the number one example.
The real problem for Nintendo is that all their games seem to be aimed at kids. Sony on the other hand aimed at an older market (a market which who were growing up themselves). They have jobs, income and a lot more potential for making some cash. Which is what it's all about. Wipeout etc were huge with post-clubbers, and it got the console a 'trendy' image.
Nintendo need to grow up a bit if they want to stay at the forefront of home gaming, especially as the market grows up even more. 30 year olds don't care much for Mario etc.
No, they just have better things to do than hang about on geek websites each day, and working in a geeky job I'm glad to have friends who don't care about IT/gadgets. They saw the adverts and wanted some of that. You're just jealous because you probably don't have many friends outside of online games involving dragons and other such nonsense.
Way to read the other replies before spouting off. My beef is with the proprietry format everyone is ripping on, not DRM or iTMS specifically. Real people (ones not on slashdot) ARE NOT using mp3's in iPods. They are using the default settings. I know, because all of my friends aren't geeky in any way, and all of them are running on defaults. The plug and play generation. These are who the iPod is aimed at.
And they are locked in now. If it had be M$ pulling this, the reaction would be hugely different.
Apperently during the Falklands war, a lot of injured folk survived because the temperature was so cold. Saw something on it either on TV or print several years ago.
Indeed, thanks for the link! Many cites have underground networks, the Paris catacombs are legendary. Defo one for the todo list! As the article says, there isn't much for the explorer types to do nowadays!
The most funny part was when I traced the route to a computer in the next building - it went through Saint-Petersburg:)
I used to work for a company that had a VPN concentrator on the other side of the planet, and when you were signed it in dropped all non-VPN traffic. So, to change the track on Winamp on a PC 10 feet away, (rather than get up) I used to SSH into my gateway, packet forward to the box, then change the track. The packets had a several thousand mile journey just to travel 10 feet. I think the only reason I did it was the perversity of it, but dammit, it worked well!
OK, this is going nowhere. I doubt we'll convence either one of us. But I still feel compelled to reply....
So post-WW II Germany, Japan, and South Korea, Afghanistan, Serbia, etc. don't count?
Most of them were multiple nations, but yes, they do count (except Afgan, that was retailiation, not humanitarian). Prior to the 60s, the US has a good history.
I can give you dozens of countries with US-supported and sometimes US-build democracies, yet you just have Pinochet on your example.
You MUST be trolling me. Like a lamb to the slaughter, can't believe I'm wasting time on this. The following are not my words, but I don't have a lot of time here, so plagurism it is:
Fulgencio Batista was a ruthless dictator, but that was all fine and dandy with the US because he was friendly with them. Not so with Cubans, which why Castro et al managed to overthrow him starting off with only 16 people.
And in Chile, Salvadore Allende was democratically elected, yet the US helped to overthrow him because he wasn't right-wing enough for them, and so that bastard Pinochet got run run roughshod over Chile for the next few decades. And that was all okay.
And in the Dominican Republic, Rafael Trujillo ("he may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch") ran a brutal dictatorship all with the help of the US. So why was he okay?
And in Nicaragua, Anastasio Somoza ran a disgraceful dictatorship all nicely sponsored by the US for decades. But once again, somehow that was okay but Sandinistas were not.
And let's not forget that good buddy of the US, Saddam Hussein, who received assloads of military equipment because it suited the interests of the US.
you don't even have to go *that* far back. During the 1st Bush term, we helped stage coups against Aristide in Haiti (sp) and Chavez in Venezuela (both democratically elected). What's so hilarious (in a depressing way) is what happened afterwards. Chavez was brought *back* into power by the people and Aristide simply said in effect "Well, if you Americans claim I left the country voluntarily, then I should be able to go back..."
You could go on and on. The US allies with folk willing to do business with them, and enemies of those who don't. That's the common trend. Not democracy building or any moralistic crusaide. I really don't have a beef with that, every nation does it. It's the glorification and denial that irks me. Hollywood really does have you believing that you are the good guys.
Oh, and I can't stand Michael Moore either, the guy is a lying two faced fraud. His techniques are deliberately misleading. His heart is in the right place I suppose.
Well, it turns out that the Lancet study has been discredited because it had a confidence interval
Where are their counter numbers to dispute the Lancet report? Iraq Body Counts numbers are all cited with multiple sources, which was the "conservative number" I mentioned. And many, if not most, are NOT reported as there is not much point literally picking up the pieces of someone to take to the hospital (and be counted).
The Lancet is the best we have right now, until someone does better. You cannot deny that the deaths are at least 50,000, including combatant deaths. At what point did we cross the line? I don't know, you can't talk about lifes that way.
This actually reminds me of a time I had the misfortune to verbally clash with a neo-nazi type person several years ago. As a WW2 history buff, I was deeply offended by his claims that the numbers from "the Jews" (his words) were exagerated. I'm not comparing you to him of course, but I'm feeling the same futility in the argument. It's sad that we can put the loss of so many lifes into numbers and not feel the impact.
I have studied statistics by the way, but not as a major (as you would say in the US). The Lancet is the best report we have until someone does any better. And as the allies have frequentl
Bad wording on my part. It's not the DRM, it's the incompatible AAC format that'll only work on Apple hardware. That's the default IIRC and most users are using it without realising the long-term effects.
As far as I know,.m4a files have no DRM on them whatsoever.
That's not my point; m4a files will only play on Apple hardware players. This is the tie in I mean.
WRT quicktime sans iTunes, I'll need to check that out, thanks for the pointer! I do feel though that they are becoming as agressive as Real, making the freebie links low profile. IMHO this is tricking non-experienced users into buying something they don't need.
Tell that to the 95% of iPod users who don't even know what DRM is and ripped with the default settings. They are locked into Apple for life, or until they re-encode all of their music. Which is not likely to happen.
The iPod is everything the/. crowd hate about the RIAA and all the other companies that want to "0wn" music. The fact that it is accepted, relished ever, is due to the fan boys. Something any/.'er should be used to, but the iPod support still surprises me.
It sucks on every level that normally matters to geeky people, and it excels for those who would normally buy Louis Viton bags. All image. Suxors!:-)
Just because you have an iPod doesn't mean you have to use iTMS.
What? You can't even install the free Quicktime Player without getting iTunes forced on you. If that had been done by someone else, e.g. Microsoft, we'd all be up in arms. But it's apple, the company that takes from OSS but never gives. My only explination is that the iPod adverts must work really well, because they've got the/. crowd hooked.
Then why bring it up? Why throw around wild accusations if you don't know what you are talking about? You are accusing me of being a moron?
Because it shows that historically, the US doesn't care about "democracy building". You are willing to topple a democracy to replace a government that you do not approve of. Therefore "democracy building" is not justification for Iraq.
Also, you list Pinoches civilan deaths, then use total war death in regard to Saddam. Apples and Oranges.
Most deaths were civilian. Did you bother to look at the URL? It listed all death tolls for all conflicts up to modern times.
Sigh. You are a moron it seems. You listed CIVILIAN deaths with respect to Pinochet, however with Saddam you could ALL deaths on BOTH sides of a long running war. You cannot compare the two and declare Saddam is worse, simple as that.
Were the Taliban foreign occupators?
Yay to your news filter. In case you didn't know, people are STILL dying over there. If you think it was welcomed with open arms, you are living in a dream world.
You either have a short memory, or you weren't paying attention
It's you who can't pay attention. I stated that in US media, you get news with a US stance. So, you then link to two US media sites that backup what I was saying. NO ONE was saying "why didn't the US do anything. Why can't you get this simple fact through your head? The only ones that think the US is the World Police is American's themselves, brought up on a lifetime of false hollywood propaganda. Go get a fucking history book, might shatter the delusions you have about your country. You ain't the "good guys" anymore.
Also, from your first link: "The United States, which Mr. Carlsson said had provided investigators with scant help and no documents during their six-month study, effectively blocked the Security Council in 1993 and 1994 from authorizing significant action in Rwanda.". That's why you got some "blame" in that case. Not because any expects anything from you.
You jump from 21,795 to 100,000 just like that without any evidence whatsoever.
Try and keep up, will you? One figure is civilan deaths, the other is total deaths. It's a war, and the collalition has frequently stated "we don't do body counts". The 21,000 is the civilan death count, required to be kept under the Geneva Convention. However, the numbers of Iraqi MALES who have died is far larger. Right or wrong, they picked up weapons to defend their country and they are dead because of YOU.
Oh, and the Lancet lists the civilan causualties as over 100,000, and that does not include hotspots like Faluja. I always discuss the most conservative numbers as people like you deny the truth when it hurts.
You claim that we shouldn't be there so Saddam could keep on killing another million.
UN sanctions killed a million Iraqis as well. Saddam did no such thing, you are once again being selective with the facts. I feel I am wasting my time here.
So, do you want the US troops to leave? Should we abandon all efforts at establishing a democracy? If Halliburton left today, would you be happy? If money is your preoccupation (your profit criticsm) is all of the money that Halliburton going to make worth more than all of the lives that Saddam could've taken up to now?
No. That would only speed up the inevitable civil war that will happen if you do ever leave. The US is stuck there for the long term, and the outcome will be more 9.11 type events. When you kill a poor persons family, they can't respond with F-16's like you do. It's your mess and frankly after discussion it with you, I'm beginning to believe you deserve it. Going on the most conservative estimates, it would take seven more 9.11 attacks to claim the lifes of US civilans to "even things out". And what the hell is up with that? Your nation went absolutely apeshit over one event. Guess what? Many Ir
How does that even remotely approaches Saddam's attrocities which number into the hundreds of thousands, and perhaps even million for all that we know?
Hey, it was just ONE example, and I don't claim to be an expert. However, you were claiming that the war in Iraq was justified because "he's the baddie" and my point was he's not the only one, and others are bad right now. He's the only one with OIL though.
Saddams attrocites did not reach a million. War, yes it's an attrocity, but not in the terms you are using. Plus it was US weapons doing a lot of the damage. You are a bunch of hypocrytes. Also, you list Pinoches civilan deaths, then use total war death in regard to Saddam. Apples and Oranges. Being someone who knows people serving in Iraq at the moment, I see a soldiers death as bad as well you know.
to the desperation which you have in attempting to prove that the US is wrong right now.
They are, regardless of my "desperation". You attacked a country for your own strategic gain, then tried to justify it, in fact you take pride in it it seems. My references to other problem regimes is meerly to point out that morality has fuck all to do with the Iraqi invasion. It's abhorent that you can be so clueless. The war is based on lies and is unjustified. It's about money, nothing more.
complained that the US didn't do anything?
Can I just point out that the rest of the world does not think about that. Anything you hear on US news involves the USA. You get a naturally biased view of everything, we all do. You didn't hear the stories saying "why didn't WE do anything". You are not the centre of the universe, only your country men see it that way. The nation of France does not wake up every morning and think "how can we piss off America today?". You are the only people that see the USA as saviours, trust me on that.
Are you sure about that, or did you just pull that assertion out of the ether? I'm sure that the French would have disagreed with you during the Normany invasion.
Wasn't an invasion, it was a liberation from an pre-existing invasion. HUGE difference. I'm in the UK, the British Empire was based on invading countries and trying to "keep the piece". A large number of the worlds problems derive from this, especially in the Middle East.
I'm sorry, but it's hard to keep on taking you seriously if you are going to quote a figure that has been discredited by everyone and their grandma. The real death toll accepted by anyone with an ounce of sanity is around 15,000.
Wrong, big time. Iraq body count lists a conservative number of 21795 double-verified civilian deaths. Everyone agrees that the number is higher because many don't get reported.
But I feel you are missing the point. I'm not just considering civilian deaths. Anyone who is dead as a result of this war has their blood on your hands. Even the insurgents, who are only defending their country from a dominering country with a history of fucking over "people of colour", must be counted. There is no doubt that AT LEAST 100,000 people are dead that would not be dead if the USA had not invaded. If you invaded my country, I'd do the same thing and I'm sure you'd do the same if you were defending Washington from a foreign force.
Drop the moral high-ground buddy, it's not there. Either you are a callous bastard profiteering from this, or you are a sheep yourself.
I find the track length on ripped songs usually varies by a few seconds anyway, so the exact length is really only useful in identifying the original CD
IIRC, the "TRM" identification used by MusicBrainz only uses the first 30 seconds of the track, so I've seen it match tracks that were two secs longer/shorter on my machine than the DB has listed.
Our objective now is a free and democratic Iraq, and there is plenty of nobility in that. We are there, and rebuilding.
You are one of the most moronic people I have ever had the misfortune to reply to. Iraq has nothing to do with democracy. Go read some South American history and see how many democracies the US has replaced with dictators. Most of whom were worse than Saddam, e.g. Gen Pinoche. There are numerous states worse than Saddam's Iraq, who are ACTIVELY commiting the crimes Saddam is accused of doing 10 years ago. Right now, as you read this, US allies are boiling people alive as a form of torture. I kid you not, this is happening right now. Sudan is also fucked right up due to ethnic cleansing and power struggles.
If you think Iraq is being done for "noble" reasons, then I'm glad that it makes you sleep soundly at night. The US now has a strategic foothold in the Middle East. A state with the second largest oil reserves when the rest of the planet is about see large rises in gas prices due to availablity (peak oil). It also allows them to withdraw their troops from Saudi Arabia, which incidentally is Osama's biggest beef with the USA as they are the only thing keeping Saudi's non-democratic dictatorship alive
Oh, and Bush DELIBERATELY MISLED people to get them behind the war. Go get some transcripts from the speaches he made. See how often Iraq is used in the same sentance as terrorist. See how often Saddam is mentioned alongside Al Qaida. Of this there is no doubt. It was a propaganda war, and you seem to be the loser.
When 50% of Americans responded in a poll that they believed Saddam was behind 9/11 it was NO accident. It was a concerted effort to place the smoking gun in Iraq, irregardless of truth and justice. That seems to be the American Way now.
Planning for the Iraq invasion PREDATES 9/11. The Project For A New Amercian Century took advantage of 9/11 to get the public on side. This is a documented fact.
EVERYTHING that has happened in Iraq was completely predicatable. With some of your politians having Vietnam experience (from both sides), you'd think they'd know a little better. NO ONE wants their country invaded, regardless of the reasons. Especially by a nation that isn't all that popular in the region to begin with. It's your quagmire and 100,000 people are dead because of YOU. And I mean you personally, as you are for their death it would seem. 25,000 of these are double-verified lists of civilans. You can take your 9/11 3,000 deaths and stick them up your arse as far as I'm concerned. Fuck you, and the horse you rode on.
See, that's my point. There are basic phones out there, they just aren't being promoted because that's not what a lot of the people want. Or perhaps, it's not a lot of what the marketeers think they want....;-)
I couldn't disagree with you more on the phone thing though. I've got email, wifi, gprs, web, ftp, ssh, vnc, text, qwerty keypad, large screen (the whole face of it in fact) in a little device I keep in my jeans pocket all the time. And it's good at every one of them and I do actually find myself using it at home where I've got serveral laptops/desktops available to me. Being able to get it out, check mail, then put it back in under the time it would take to get the laptop out of the bag makes it worthwhile.
Plus, it's also the remote for my media centre, and I keep a lot of mp3s on it. I'm finding that's really good for my health actually, I'm doing a lot more walking to places now that I can simply throw on some music to pass the journey by, without having to bring a separate player and more tangled headphones to deal with.
I just don't see what everyones problem is. If your phone has a calendar that you want, don't use it!! It's not harming the phone feature at all, put down those rose tinted glasses for a minute. Phones calls were not better quality when they were basic devices!! I don't know where everyone is getting this from, it's nonsense. They sucked for calls then, and they still suck to a large extent now. Also, remember that the number of customers has grown massively. You used to be able to make calls after a large sporting event without problem, nowadays it's nigh impossible. Is that the fault of the calendar as well?
The mere existence of professional Christian philosophers who write articles for refereed journals, hold professorships in secular universities, and etc, is to me good evidence against your claim (or what your claim inmplies, really) that Christians are only Christians because they utterly lack critical thinking skills.
Yup, I'll conceed there, 'twas a bit wide-reaching. We all know all generalisations are false, so it would be wrong to assume all Christians (or any other religion) don't actually think about what they are doing. But I'd say the vast majority of people who would call themselves Christian don't think about it and are only Christian because of the life/culture/country they were born into. You clearly aren't in that bunch, as aren't several folk I know. I know a lot more who follow blindly however.
Most theologically conservative Christians are very interested in evidence for the reliability of the Bible.
I've actually only ever heard of the history of the bible from people like that. I've not seen (or had my attention held) by the research of any non-believer into this subject. Never actually thought about that until you suggested it. As I said though in another post, I do have a lot of respect of those who question and come to their faith via reasoned thinking. I just can't agree with many of their arguments.
Are you sure your rejection of God is based here on critical thinking, or does it have more to do with your preferences and feelings?
It's more when I heard the exact same claim from just about every religion I checked with. It just sounded wrong, and it ties in with my thoughts about the longevety of several religions. Remember, we are coming to this debate 2000 years too late. The "one true religion" may have died out 1800 years ago.
Want to know my personal beliefs? OK, maybe not, but here goes...the way I see it is that the bible may or may not cover true events. However, I am all to well aware of how myths become legends then to be held as fact. UK history is full of such things. Robin Hood is believed in by many folk, but most historians will say it's a romantic fantasy. Now, growing up around this sort of history probably helps, in fact I even remember school classes on different interpretations of events in history.
So, back to the bible. I think people should view it as a guide to life really. It's contents may or may not relate to actual events, however it's message is clear. If there is an afterlife, I'd like to believe the better parts are available to those who led decent lifes. Not a perfect life, I don't believe that's possible, but if you help others, don't cheat, steal, be violent (or support violence, IMHO the neo-cons are going straight to hell) and are aware & regretfull of anything you have done wrong (within reason), then surely that's cool.
So, why am I pissed of about religion in general? Because so many other people use and abuse it to get their ways. Fear and religion are very powerful things, you can move entire countries with them. Should some parchment come to light that disproves something that (in my mind) causes a large amount of woe in the world, I would not be all that upset. However, it won't work as like the Christians who believe in evolution, the teachings will mold around what is accepted fact.
Also, I think everyone is fully aware of the fact that men wrote the scriptures, and that those men were influenced by their language, culture, experiences, and so on. That affects how we exegete the bible, but it doesn't force us to one conclusion or another about its accuracy or whether its ultimate origin was divine.
That's simply not true for the general population. The vast majority of those who believe in the bible think it is 100% the word of god. Many of these people think it was written in English originally. Seriously. That's the way it is for most, they are taught to accept it in it's entirety, or they don't even think about quest
Slashdot Mirror
America hasn't been at peace since the Korea war. Ever since then your troops have been involved in combat somewhere around the planet.
They expand and then collapse from their size, or the government goes into some kind of fascist or other ubercontrolled mode that simply cannot be sustained.
At least we are able to say that we were around to see it happen.
Now we are such a femalecentric bunch of wimps that will do anything because we are so scared of the boogieman.
That stragegy has worked for thousands of years. All the religions have used it, the Nazi's, the Israeli's, numerous other facists blah blah blah. Why change it?
That is a fucked up example. He shot someone in the back that was running away from his house, then let him bleed to death on his lawn before he was reported missing the next day.
There was no reason for him to fire and in most US states he would be facing charges for his actions.
Not that you are deliberately misleading people or anything. He shot someone in cold blood and let them die in one of the most horrible way imaginable. Hardly "innocent".
Because they have little spending cash. You still get games aimed at the younger market on the other systems, it's just the focus that's different. Google for "Marketing".
MicroSony are making a mistake in focusing on today's markets to the exclusion of tomorrow's
You are so wrong. The media hub thing is going to happen. For many it's already happened (you can build your own), and MS and Sony will steal the show, though Apple might get a sneak in (minus the games) with some of their upcoming stuff. I've not heard Nintento talk about this sort of thing, and it might be just the thing that nails them. Game developers care primarily about one thing; the number of target boxes sitting under monitors/televisions. If the other two players in this game romp the market, Nintendo won't get the third-party games they are used to.
Of course, everyone in this discussion thinks I WANT Nintendo to fail going by the attitude in most replies! What the hell is wrong with you people? :-)
30, earning over that. Most folk I know have a PS2/Xbox/GC gen system, not one of them is into Mario or the like. Sports, driving, first-person, third-person etc all those kinds of things. Can't think of anyone that still has their Game Cube, but I know at least one who used to. I'm not talking hardcore gamers, just joe average, one system, 4-6 games.
30 year old boys want gameplay value, not mindless violence.
Just a couple of examples, jesus, what's with the pigeon-holeing? Not all the games I've listed are violent, but you gotta admit it does sell. Look at the movie box office, where many of the movies are restricted by ratings to only adults.
I'm talking games with thought and depth, not jumping platform to platform to save the ever distressed pricess. Yeah, Nintendo do have some games like that on their systems, but not to the level of Sony/MS. There's also the niche things like the iToy, I know at least 3/4 households who have bought a PS2 just for that and/or dance mats as well.
The people on Slashdot don't seem to realise they are in the minority. When something hits the mainstream, most manufacturers tend to go for main stream. This is why Sony is running away with it just now.
Why is it so hard to accept that prodominately child-like games is not a sound marketing strategy in an increasingly competative market? Sega have already bailed on a lot of things, and Nintendo are a shadow of themselves as well. Everyone needs to take a chill pill and stop getting so fucking up tight. It's a TOY!!
Agreed. They do have a place with those who have a fondness for Mario from previous gaming experience, but it's an ever dwindling market. I'm not saying throw away the francise entirely, but you need to change and evolve. People associate Nintendo with Mario, and that's not going to help them buy their way into your home media hub where the big market is going to be over the next 10 years or so.
Sigh. Read what you wrote..."bought YOU". I'm talking about 30 year olds earning 40k+ buying shit for themselves. These folks grew up on gaming and aren't going to stop. Most want the likes of GTA and Resident Evil.
Nintendo make great games, don't get me wrong. But a fat plumber & turtles verses gangsters & zombies? Do yourself a favour and forget about that marketing job; it's not for you! ;-)
The real problem for Nintendo is that all their games seem to be aimed at kids. Sony on the other hand aimed at an older market (a market which who were growing up themselves). They have jobs, income and a lot more potential for making some cash. Which is what it's all about. Wipeout etc were huge with post-clubbers, and it got the console a 'trendy' image.
Nintendo need to grow up a bit if they want to stay at the forefront of home gaming, especially as the market grows up even more. 30 year olds don't care much for Mario etc.
No, they just have better things to do than hang about on geek websites each day, and working in a geeky job I'm glad to have friends who don't care about IT/gadgets. They saw the adverts and wanted some of that. You're just jealous because you probably don't have many friends outside of online games involving dragons and other such nonsense.
And they are locked in now. If it had be M$ pulling this, the reaction would be hugely different.
Apperently during the Falklands war, a lot of injured folk survived because the temperature was so cold. Saw something on it either on TV or print several years ago.
Indeed, thanks for the link! Many cites have underground networks, the Paris catacombs are legendary. Defo one for the todo list! As the article says, there isn't much for the explorer types to do nowadays!
I used to work for a company that had a VPN concentrator on the other side of the planet, and when you were signed it in dropped all non-VPN traffic. So, to change the track on Winamp on a PC 10 feet away, (rather than get up) I used to SSH into my gateway, packet forward to the box, then change the track. The packets had a several thousand mile journey just to travel 10 feet. I think the only reason I did it was the perversity of it, but dammit, it worked well!
So post-WW II Germany, Japan, and South Korea, Afghanistan, Serbia, etc. don't count?
Most of them were multiple nations, but yes, they do count (except Afgan, that was retailiation, not humanitarian). Prior to the 60s, the US has a good history.
I can give you dozens of countries with US-supported and sometimes US-build democracies, yet you just have Pinochet on your example.
You MUST be trolling me. Like a lamb to the slaughter, can't believe I'm wasting time on this. The following are not my words, but I don't have a lot of time here, so plagurism it is:
You could go on and on. The US allies with folk willing to do business with them, and enemies of those who don't. That's the common trend. Not democracy building or any moralistic crusaide. I really don't have a beef with that, every nation does it. It's the glorification and denial that irks me. Hollywood really does have you believing that you are the good guys.
Oh, and I can't stand Michael Moore either, the guy is a lying two faced fraud. His techniques are deliberately misleading. His heart is in the right place I suppose.
Well, it turns out that the Lancet study has been discredited because it had a confidence interval
Where are their counter numbers to dispute the Lancet report? Iraq Body Counts numbers are all cited with multiple sources, which was the "conservative number" I mentioned. And many, if not most, are NOT reported as there is not much point literally picking up the pieces of someone to take to the hospital (and be counted).
The Lancet is the best we have right now, until someone does better. You cannot deny that the deaths are at least 50,000, including combatant deaths. At what point did we cross the line? I don't know, you can't talk about lifes that way.
This actually reminds me of a time I had the misfortune to verbally clash with a neo-nazi type person several years ago. As a WW2 history buff, I was deeply offended by his claims that the numbers from "the Jews" (his words) were exagerated. I'm not comparing you to him of course, but I'm feeling the same futility in the argument. It's sad that we can put the loss of so many lifes into numbers and not feel the impact.
I have studied statistics by the way, but not as a major (as you would say in the US). The Lancet is the best report we have until someone does any better. And as the allies have frequentl
Bad wording on my part. It's not the DRM, it's the incompatible AAC format that'll only work on Apple hardware. That's the default IIRC and most users are using it without realising the long-term effects.
That's not my point; m4a files will only play on Apple hardware players. This is the tie in I mean.
WRT quicktime sans iTunes, I'll need to check that out, thanks for the pointer! I do feel though that they are becoming as agressive as Real, making the freebie links low profile. IMHO this is tricking non-experienced users into buying something they don't need.
You said something bad about Apple. That'll always get you modded down, trust me, been there before.
Tell that to the 95% of iPod users who don't even know what DRM is and ripped with the default settings. They are locked into Apple for life, or until they re-encode all of their music. Which is not likely to happen.
The iPod is everything the /. crowd hate about the RIAA and all the other companies that want to "0wn" music. The fact that it is accepted, relished ever, is due to the fan boys. Something any /.'er should be used to, but the iPod support still surprises me.
It sucks on every level that normally matters to geeky people, and it excels for those who would normally buy Louis Viton bags. All image. Suxors! :-)
Just because you have an iPod doesn't mean you have to use iTMS.
What? You can't even install the free Quicktime Player without getting iTunes forced on you. If that had been done by someone else, e.g. Microsoft, we'd all be up in arms. But it's apple, the company that takes from OSS but never gives. My only explination is that the iPod adverts must work really well, because they've got the /. crowd hooked.
Because it shows that historically, the US doesn't care about "democracy building". You are willing to topple a democracy to replace a government that you do not approve of. Therefore "democracy building" is not justification for Iraq.
Most deaths were civilian. Did you bother to look at the URL? It listed all death tolls for all conflicts up to modern times.
Sigh. You are a moron it seems. You listed CIVILIAN deaths with respect to Pinochet, however with Saddam you could ALL deaths on BOTH sides of a long running war. You cannot compare the two and declare Saddam is worse, simple as that.
Were the Taliban foreign occupators?
Yay to your news filter. In case you didn't know, people are STILL dying over there. If you think it was welcomed with open arms, you are living in a dream world.
You either have a short memory, or you weren't paying attention
It's you who can't pay attention. I stated that in US media, you get news with a US stance. So, you then link to two US media sites that backup what I was saying. NO ONE was saying "why didn't the US do anything. Why can't you get this simple fact through your head? The only ones that think the US is the World Police is American's themselves, brought up on a lifetime of false hollywood propaganda. Go get a fucking history book, might shatter the delusions you have about your country. You ain't the "good guys" anymore.
Also, from your first link: "The United States, which Mr. Carlsson said had provided investigators with scant help and no documents during their six-month study, effectively blocked the Security Council in 1993 and 1994 from authorizing significant action in Rwanda.". That's why you got some "blame" in that case. Not because any expects anything from you.
You jump from 21,795 to 100,000 just like that without any evidence whatsoever.
Try and keep up, will you? One figure is civilan deaths, the other is total deaths. It's a war, and the collalition has frequently stated "we don't do body counts". The 21,000 is the civilan death count, required to be kept under the Geneva Convention. However, the numbers of Iraqi MALES who have died is far larger. Right or wrong, they picked up weapons to defend their country and they are dead because of YOU.
Oh, and the Lancet lists the civilan causualties as over 100,000, and that does not include hotspots like Faluja. I always discuss the most conservative numbers as people like you deny the truth when it hurts.
You claim that we shouldn't be there so Saddam could keep on killing another million.
UN sanctions killed a million Iraqis as well. Saddam did no such thing, you are once again being selective with the facts. I feel I am wasting my time here.
So, do you want the US troops to leave? Should we abandon all efforts at establishing a democracy? If Halliburton left today, would you be happy? If money is your preoccupation (your profit criticsm) is all of the money that Halliburton going to make worth more than all of the lives that Saddam could've taken up to now?
No. That would only speed up the inevitable civil war that will happen if you do ever leave. The US is stuck there for the long term, and the outcome will be more 9.11 type events. When you kill a poor persons family, they can't respond with F-16's like you do. It's your mess and frankly after discussion it with you, I'm beginning to believe you deserve it. Going on the most conservative estimates, it would take seven more 9.11 attacks to claim the lifes of US civilans to "even things out". And what the hell is up with that? Your nation went absolutely apeshit over one event. Guess what? Many Ir
Hey, it was just ONE example, and I don't claim to be an expert. However, you were claiming that the war in Iraq was justified because "he's the baddie" and my point was he's not the only one, and others are bad right now. He's the only one with OIL though.
Saddams attrocites did not reach a million. War, yes it's an attrocity, but not in the terms you are using. Plus it was US weapons doing a lot of the damage. You are a bunch of hypocrytes. Also, you list Pinoches civilan deaths, then use total war death in regard to Saddam. Apples and Oranges. Being someone who knows people serving in Iraq at the moment, I see a soldiers death as bad as well you know.
to the desperation which you have in attempting to prove that the US is wrong right now.
They are, regardless of my "desperation". You attacked a country for your own strategic gain, then tried to justify it, in fact you take pride in it it seems. My references to other problem regimes is meerly to point out that morality has fuck all to do with the Iraqi invasion. It's abhorent that you can be so clueless. The war is based on lies and is unjustified. It's about money, nothing more.
complained that the US didn't do anything?
Can I just point out that the rest of the world does not think about that. Anything you hear on US news involves the USA. You get a naturally biased view of everything, we all do. You didn't hear the stories saying "why didn't WE do anything". You are not the centre of the universe, only your country men see it that way. The nation of France does not wake up every morning and think "how can we piss off America today?". You are the only people that see the USA as saviours, trust me on that.
Are you sure about that, or did you just pull that assertion out of the ether? I'm sure that the French would have disagreed with you during the Normany invasion.
Wasn't an invasion, it was a liberation from an pre-existing invasion. HUGE difference. I'm in the UK, the British Empire was based on invading countries and trying to "keep the piece". A large number of the worlds problems derive from this, especially in the Middle East.
I'm sorry, but it's hard to keep on taking you seriously if you are going to quote a figure that has been discredited by everyone and their grandma. The real death toll accepted by anyone with an ounce of sanity is around 15,000.
Wrong, big time. Iraq body count lists a conservative number of 21795 double-verified civilian deaths. Everyone agrees that the number is higher because many don't get reported.
But I feel you are missing the point. I'm not just considering civilian deaths. Anyone who is dead as a result of this war has their blood on your hands. Even the insurgents, who are only defending their country from a dominering country with a history of fucking over "people of colour", must be counted. There is no doubt that AT LEAST 100,000 people are dead that would not be dead if the USA had not invaded. If you invaded my country, I'd do the same thing and I'm sure you'd do the same if you were defending Washington from a foreign force.
Drop the moral high-ground buddy, it's not there. Either you are a callous bastard profiteering from this, or you are a sheep yourself.
IIRC, the "TRM" identification used by MusicBrainz only uses the first 30 seconds of the track, so I've seen it match tracks that were two secs longer/shorter on my machine than the DB has listed.
You are one of the most moronic people I have ever had the misfortune to reply to. Iraq has nothing to do with democracy. Go read some South American history and see how many democracies the US has replaced with dictators. Most of whom were worse than Saddam, e.g. Gen Pinoche. There are numerous states worse than Saddam's Iraq, who are ACTIVELY commiting the crimes Saddam is accused of doing 10 years ago. Right now, as you read this, US allies are boiling people alive as a form of torture. I kid you not, this is happening right now. Sudan is also fucked right up due to ethnic cleansing and power struggles.
If you think Iraq is being done for "noble" reasons, then I'm glad that it makes you sleep soundly at night. The US now has a strategic foothold in the Middle East. A state with the second largest oil reserves when the rest of the planet is about see large rises in gas prices due to availablity (peak oil). It also allows them to withdraw their troops from Saudi Arabia, which incidentally is Osama's biggest beef with the USA as they are the only thing keeping Saudi's non-democratic dictatorship alive
Oh, and Bush DELIBERATELY MISLED people to get them behind the war. Go get some transcripts from the speaches he made. See how often Iraq is used in the same sentance as terrorist. See how often Saddam is mentioned alongside Al Qaida. Of this there is no doubt. It was a propaganda war, and you seem to be the loser. When 50% of Americans responded in a poll that they believed Saddam was behind 9/11 it was NO accident. It was a concerted effort to place the smoking gun in Iraq, irregardless of truth and justice. That seems to be the American Way now.
Planning for the Iraq invasion PREDATES 9/11. The Project For A New Amercian Century took advantage of 9/11 to get the public on side. This is a documented fact.
EVERYTHING that has happened in Iraq was completely predicatable. With some of your politians having Vietnam experience (from both sides), you'd think they'd know a little better. NO ONE wants their country invaded, regardless of the reasons. Especially by a nation that isn't all that popular in the region to begin with. It's your quagmire and 100,000 people are dead because of YOU. And I mean you personally, as you are for their death it would seem. 25,000 of these are double-verified lists of civilans. You can take your 9/11 3,000 deaths and stick them up your arse as far as I'm concerned. Fuck you, and the horse you rode on.
That may be, but XBMC has nothing to do with Windows Media Centre. It's an OSS project.
Wow. Although some of us have had this for like two years already :-)
I couldn't disagree with you more on the phone thing though. I've got email, wifi, gprs, web, ftp, ssh, vnc, text, qwerty keypad, large screen (the whole face of it in fact) in a little device I keep in my jeans pocket all the time. And it's good at every one of them and I do actually find myself using it at home where I've got serveral laptops/desktops available to me. Being able to get it out, check mail, then put it back in under the time it would take to get the laptop out of the bag makes it worthwhile.
Plus, it's also the remote for my media centre, and I keep a lot of mp3s on it. I'm finding that's really good for my health actually, I'm doing a lot more walking to places now that I can simply throw on some music to pass the journey by, without having to bring a separate player and more tangled headphones to deal with.
I just don't see what everyones problem is. If your phone has a calendar that you want, don't use it!! It's not harming the phone feature at all, put down those rose tinted glasses for a minute. Phones calls were not better quality when they were basic devices!! I don't know where everyone is getting this from, it's nonsense. They sucked for calls then, and they still suck to a large extent now. Also, remember that the number of customers has grown massively. You used to be able to make calls after a large sporting event without problem, nowadays it's nigh impossible. Is that the fault of the calendar as well?
Yup, I'll conceed there, 'twas a bit wide-reaching. We all know all generalisations are false, so it would be wrong to assume all Christians (or any other religion) don't actually think about what they are doing. But I'd say the vast majority of people who would call themselves Christian don't think about it and are only Christian because of the life/culture/country they were born into. You clearly aren't in that bunch, as aren't several folk I know. I know a lot more who follow blindly however.
Most theologically conservative Christians are very interested in evidence for the reliability of the Bible.
I've actually only ever heard of the history of the bible from people like that. I've not seen (or had my attention held) by the research of any non-believer into this subject. Never actually thought about that until you suggested it. As I said though in another post, I do have a lot of respect of those who question and come to their faith via reasoned thinking. I just can't agree with many of their arguments.
Are you sure your rejection of God is based here on critical thinking, or does it have more to do with your preferences and feelings?
It's more when I heard the exact same claim from just about every religion I checked with. It just sounded wrong, and it ties in with my thoughts about the longevety of several religions. Remember, we are coming to this debate 2000 years too late. The "one true religion" may have died out 1800 years ago.
Want to know my personal beliefs? OK, maybe not, but here goes...the way I see it is that the bible may or may not cover true events. However, I am all to well aware of how myths become legends then to be held as fact. UK history is full of such things. Robin Hood is believed in by many folk, but most historians will say it's a romantic fantasy. Now, growing up around this sort of history probably helps, in fact I even remember school classes on different interpretations of events in history.
So, back to the bible. I think people should view it as a guide to life really. It's contents may or may not relate to actual events, however it's message is clear. If there is an afterlife, I'd like to believe the better parts are available to those who led decent lifes. Not a perfect life, I don't believe that's possible, but if you help others, don't cheat, steal, be violent (or support violence, IMHO the neo-cons are going straight to hell) and are aware & regretfull of anything you have done wrong (within reason), then surely that's cool.
So, why am I pissed of about religion in general? Because so many other people use and abuse it to get their ways. Fear and religion are very powerful things, you can move entire countries with them. Should some parchment come to light that disproves something that (in my mind) causes a large amount of woe in the world, I would not be all that upset. However, it won't work as like the Christians who believe in evolution, the teachings will mold around what is accepted fact.
Also, I think everyone is fully aware of the fact that men wrote the scriptures, and that those men were influenced by their language, culture, experiences, and so on. That affects how we exegete the bible, but it doesn't force us to one conclusion or another about its accuracy or whether its ultimate origin was divine.
That's simply not true for the general population. The vast majority of those who believe in the bible think it is 100% the word of god. Many of these people think it was written in English originally. Seriously. That's the way it is for most, they are taught to accept it in it's entirety, or they don't even think about quest