Amazon doesn't appear to carry these discs... last time I was there I got an Abbott and Costello collection and the animated version of Animal Farm, both were MSRP of $1.00. It's a single company that makes all these discs, and they come in a huge box of "assorted" discs that are all randomly shuffled. The retailer then just opens the boxes and sticks them on a stand.
I'm not sure what the markup is for the retailer, but assuming 30-35%, which seems normal, that means the manufacturer is selling them for $0.65 each. Cheap case, and its not like pressing DVDs is any kind of real cost when done on this grand a scale... there seems to be some money in it.
Actually I misspoke, it was Our Gang, not Little Rascals (mostly the same show though). The dual-sided disc which contains almost a whole season is marked (printed on the box, not with a price sticker) MSRP: $1.00
Your claim that it's "not worth it" runs directly counter to the example presented: these are NOT clearout sales on stuff that's going out of print, that's the MSRP on many of these DVDs. Dual Sided discs and insanely cheap packaging are our friends in this case, and if it wasn't worth it to the manufacturer, they wouldn't be doing it.
For those who've never been in Walmart, he's not exaggerating, you can seriously go into a bargain bin and find an entire seasons of, for example, Abbott and Costello's TV series or the Little Rascals, for $1US.
Its definitely been interesting. I guess I got a little off-topic, my real point was that the opposition to the UN and the complaints about it that I've seen neither begin nor end with Bolton, or the War in Iraq. I remember as a teen, so it must've been the early-90's, riding in the car, and seeing a huge sign that read "Get us out of the UN Now!".
It's more a fear of globalism (where I live this is particularly strong because globalism is seen as costing a lot of jobs). The opposition tends to wax and wane, it seems like around here it really got going in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union and it continues more or less to this day.
I'll have to admit, I don't know a terrible lot about Refugees International. They're no Amnesty, that's for sure, but the report in question does seem at least relatively well documented.
My personal opinion is that the need for international peacekeeping is far overstated. The reasonable things which the UN does, like observing elections, seem like they could be performed just as efficiently by privately funded NGOs (like the Red Cross), and are probably best done without troops.
You're right that unilateral military action tends to make matters worse, but it seems to me that it's by no means certain that multilateral action is any better. Even without the examples of targetting civilians, I just don't see the "good" that UN troops are doing. Make no mistake, I'm not proposing NATO or anyone else as an alternative, I'm proposing that such an alternative just isn't needed.
Most of the so-called peacekeeping operations amount to picking sides in an internal conflict and forcing the international will on locals at gunpoint. One needs only look at the (now over a dozen) dubious self-proclaimed "governments" of Somalia that the UN has recognized and backed to see that their agenda doesn't always reflect the desires of the locals.
It's always interesting to hear how stories are covered in different parts of the world. I mean, my job has me reading the websites of the BBC, the Guardian, the Independent, and the Telegraph on a daily basis, but I find that the stories covered on news websites and the stories covered on TV and print news (even if its they're both run by the same people) are often markedly different.
The whole deal with the UN's "peacekeepers" being portrayed as a good thing does seem to be quite common on the television news (its true here in the US, and in Canada, and apparently its true in the UK as well). The stories of UN peacekeepers, however, intentionally killing civilians in Congo, or complicity in similar actions in Haiti, or (and this one is actually from the BBC) sexual abuse of women and underage girls are things that can't just be ignored, even if a big deal is not generally made of them by the broadcast media.
I guess the argument could be made that recent US aggression is liable to lead to an increase in attempts to control the internet, but personally I tend to see it as the exact opposite case: that they're too busy trying to conquer the world and reshape the middle east in their own image to really tackle any serious curbs on the internet. Indeed, I think that the seperate nature of the UN might make it appealing for the US to pursue an agenda of censorship of the internet that runs afoul of their own laws since its done under the auspices of "global control". I'm also concerned that an organization that has nothing better to do than make Smurf-bombing fanfics is liable to be more proactive.
If I had my way, I'd keep both of them and every other government entirely out of the internet.
I guess we'll have to chalk that first part up to hanging out with different crowds or something, but no one I know ever held the UN in particularly high regard. These problems didn't just spring up overnight, nor are they localized into one particular segment of their bureaucracy.
I think the big thing though is that by and large the US hasn't been managing the internet, they've just left it be to grow on its own. The threat isn't so much the US govenrment losing control of the internet as someone else gaining that control who's actually going to use it.
The UN is an unknown here, but I can't think of a single example of anything they've ever done on the scale of managing the internet that they haven't managed to fuck up on a grand scale. If you can think of one, I'd be interested in hearing it.
Political issues aside, the UN is unwieldy and corrupt. I have no idea whether the the original author meant the UN was untrustworthy in the sense that it doesn't always instantly capitualate to whatever military adventure the domanant superpowers of the day might wish to engage in, or if he's referring to UN troops massacring civilians in backwater African villages as a matter of revenge for an ambush, or their mismanagement of Haiti, or any of the nearly countless other things there are to not like about the UN, the point remains, and I think it's a fair one.
Who needs a DMCA, just look at who's using this technology: the CIA. They'll just make it a matter of national security to keep it out of the average individual's hands.
Its just a question of providing choices. Personally I have no interest in the Micro (already owning two original model GBAs and a DS), but it appeals to a certain crowd: the tragically hip.
You know those people who bought PSPs at launch and never bought a game for it (that happened a lot actually, the PSP had a shockingly low tie-in ratio). People who use a portable video game system as a fashion accessory... or like those people that buy an iPod and have maybe 5 songs on it and keep it tastefully in a belt pouch.
The GBA already has amazing market saturation among video game players, this is an attempt to increase market share among people who don't play games. That's what the faceplates are about: making sure the people using them for a fashion accessory can avoid it clashing with their clothes.
They're far from mutually exclusive, but you could have a society that's simultaneously Communist, Democratic, AND Totalitarian... you just need a voting public that's really evil and/or really stupid.
In fact, some would argue that a democratic system by its nature tends toward both Communism in the economy and totalitarianism in the other aspects of the state.
What he said was an exaggeration, but not much of one. The US does, at least to some extent, make the rules for everywhere... a government unwilling to obey those rules is likely to find itself on the receiving end of a bloodless coup or a color-coded revolution.
Pointless tripe... virtually no stores were willing to sell or rent games to kids with those ratings before.
I'm pushing 30 and I look it... and I still get "carded" some places when I try to buy an M game.
It's alot like the hunt for some of those privateers went before the advent of all this pesky technology.
Surely the argument isn't that the government has to have the instant ability to capture and/or kill anyone without any real effort (and certainly without all that pesky due process)
If they're cheap enough I might buy one... I've got assloads of PPC software and am very skeptical of the ability to run them (well) emulated on an x86.
I think it's more a question of mounting nationalism. They're not so much worried about mad cow disease but contracting royalist tendancies or damaging the flag worship gene. European blood is downright unAmerican... and if you've been their long enough your blood might be suspect too.
Come on, whats the point of even debating this. Microsoft is not going to be weak at release anyway. Even the games are complete turds people are going to lap it up because they have the jump on the next gen.
Like they did with the Dreamcast... or the CDi, or the Turbo-Graphix 16...
why does everyone seem to think "first to market" is a silver bullet that trumps all other issues?
Slashdot Mirror
Amazon doesn't appear to carry these discs... last time I was there I got an Abbott and Costello collection and the animated version of Animal Farm, both were MSRP of $1.00. It's a single company that makes all these discs, and they come in a huge box of "assorted" discs that are all randomly shuffled. The retailer then just opens the boxes and sticks them on a stand.
I'm not sure what the markup is for the retailer, but assuming 30-35%, which seems normal, that means the manufacturer is selling them for $0.65 each. Cheap case, and its not like pressing DVDs is any kind of real cost when done on this grand a scale... there seems to be some money in it.
Actually I misspoke, it was Our Gang, not Little Rascals (mostly the same show though). The dual-sided disc which contains almost a whole season is marked (printed on the box, not with a price sticker) MSRP: $1.00
Your claim that it's "not worth it" runs directly counter to the example presented: these are NOT clearout sales on stuff that's going out of print, that's the MSRP on many of these DVDs. Dual Sided discs and insanely cheap packaging are our friends in this case, and if it wasn't worth it to the manufacturer, they wouldn't be doing it. For those who've never been in Walmart, he's not exaggerating, you can seriously go into a bargain bin and find an entire seasons of, for example, Abbott and Costello's TV series or the Little Rascals, for $1US.
Its definitely been interesting. I guess I got a little off-topic, my real point was that the opposition to the UN and the complaints about it that I've seen neither begin nor end with Bolton, or the War in Iraq. I remember as a teen, so it must've been the early-90's, riding in the car, and seeing a huge sign that read "Get us out of the UN Now!".
It's more a fear of globalism (where I live this is particularly strong because globalism is seen as costing a lot of jobs). The opposition tends to wax and wane, it seems like around here it really got going in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union and it continues more or less to this day.
I'll have to admit, I don't know a terrible lot about Refugees International. They're no Amnesty, that's for sure, but the report in question does seem at least relatively well documented.
My personal opinion is that the need for international peacekeeping is far overstated. The reasonable things which the UN does, like observing elections, seem like they could be performed just as efficiently by privately funded NGOs (like the Red Cross), and are probably best done without troops.
You're right that unilateral military action tends to make matters worse, but it seems to me that it's by no means certain that multilateral action is any better. Even without the examples of targetting civilians, I just don't see the "good" that UN troops are doing. Make no mistake, I'm not proposing NATO or anyone else as an alternative, I'm proposing that such an alternative just isn't needed.
Most of the so-called peacekeeping operations amount to picking sides in an internal conflict and forcing the international will on locals at gunpoint. One needs only look at the (now over a dozen) dubious self-proclaimed "governments" of Somalia that the UN has recognized and backed to see that their agenda doesn't always reflect the desires of the locals.
It's always interesting to hear how stories are covered in different parts of the world. I mean, my job has me reading the websites of the BBC, the Guardian, the Independent, and the Telegraph on a daily basis, but I find that the stories covered on news websites and the stories covered on TV and print news (even if its they're both run by the same people) are often markedly different.
The whole deal with the UN's "peacekeepers" being portrayed as a good thing does seem to be quite common on the television news (its true here in the US, and in Canada, and apparently its true in the UK as well). The stories of UN peacekeepers, however, intentionally killing civilians in Congo, or complicity in similar actions in Haiti, or (and this one is actually from the BBC) sexual abuse of women and underage girls are things that can't just be ignored, even if a big deal is not generally made of them by the broadcast media.
In fact, Refugees International just recently released a report on the culture within UN peacekeeping forces showing that these are no isolated incidents, but rather endemic.
I guess the argument could be made that recent US aggression is liable to lead to an increase in attempts to control the internet, but personally I tend to see it as the exact opposite case: that they're too busy trying to conquer the world and reshape the middle east in their own image to really tackle any serious curbs on the internet. Indeed, I think that the seperate nature of the UN might make it appealing for the US to pursue an agenda of censorship of the internet that runs afoul of their own laws since its done under the auspices of "global control". I'm also concerned that an organization that has nothing better to do than make Smurf-bombing fanfics is liable to be more proactive.
If I had my way, I'd keep both of them and every other government entirely out of the internet.
I guess we'll have to chalk that first part up to hanging out with different crowds or something, but no one I know ever held the UN in particularly high regard. These problems didn't just spring up overnight, nor are they localized into one particular segment of their bureaucracy.
I think the big thing though is that by and large the US hasn't been managing the internet, they've just left it be to grow on its own. The threat isn't so much the US govenrment losing control of the internet as someone else gaining that control who's actually going to use it.
The UN is an unknown here, but I can't think of a single example of anything they've ever done on the scale of managing the internet that they haven't managed to fuck up on a grand scale. If you can think of one, I'd be interested in hearing it.
Political issues aside, the UN is unwieldy and corrupt. I have no idea whether the the original author meant the UN was untrustworthy in the sense that it doesn't always instantly capitualate to whatever military adventure the domanant superpowers of the day might wish to engage in, or if he's referring to UN troops massacring civilians in backwater African villages as a matter of revenge for an ambush, or their mismanagement of Haiti, or any of the nearly countless other things there are to not like about the UN, the point remains, and I think it's a fair one.
Who needs a DMCA, just look at who's using this technology: the CIA. They'll just make it a matter of national security to keep it out of the average individual's hands.
I think it was about the same time McDonald's started having street cred.
Its just a question of providing choices. Personally I have no interest in the Micro (already owning two original model GBAs and a DS), but it appeals to a certain crowd: the tragically hip. You know those people who bought PSPs at launch and never bought a game for it (that happened a lot actually, the PSP had a shockingly low tie-in ratio). People who use a portable video game system as a fashion accessory... or like those people that buy an iPod and have maybe 5 songs on it and keep it tastefully in a belt pouch. The GBA already has amazing market saturation among video game players, this is an attempt to increase market share among people who don't play games. That's what the faceplates are about: making sure the people using them for a fashion accessory can avoid it clashing with their clothes.
That's going to make it a bitch to type.
They should've called it Secure Digital or something. Maybe have it fit in the same drives as MMC
They're far from mutually exclusive, but you could have a society that's simultaneously Communist, Democratic, AND Totalitarian... you just need a voting public that's really evil and/or really stupid. In fact, some would argue that a democratic system by its nature tends toward both Communism in the economy and totalitarianism in the other aspects of the state.
But what exactly is the incentive to learn Emacs anymore?
Just keep telling yourself that when American customs agents are searching your luggage at a Canadian airport.
What he said was an exaggeration, but not much of one. The US does, at least to some extent, make the rules for everywhere... a government unwilling to obey those rules is likely to find itself on the receiving end of a bloodless coup or a color-coded revolution.
Pointless tripe... virtually no stores were willing to sell or rent games to kids with those ratings before. I'm pushing 30 and I look it... and I still get "carded" some places when I try to buy an M game.
I guess in all fairness there could still be an earthquake/tidal wave situation. Probably not something to lose sleep over.
It's alot like the hunt for some of those privateers went before the advent of all this pesky technology. Surely the argument isn't that the government has to have the instant ability to capture and/or kill anyone without any real effort (and certainly without all that pesky due process)
So you don't think the government, as it stands, is capable of crushing whatever individuals it chooses?
If they're cheap enough I might buy one... I've got assloads of PPC software and am very skeptical of the ability to run them (well) emulated on an x86.
I think it's more a question of mounting nationalism. They're not so much worried about mad cow disease but contracting royalist tendancies or damaging the flag worship gene. European blood is downright unAmerican... and if you've been their long enough your blood might be suspect too.
Yeah, it forced us to innovate and come up with all sorts of different types of corporate welfare.
Come on, whats the point of even debating this. Microsoft is not going to be weak at release anyway. Even the games are complete turds people are going to lap it up because they have the jump on the next gen.
Like they did with the Dreamcast... or the CDi, or the Turbo-Graphix 16...
why does everyone seem to think "first to market" is a silver bullet that trumps all other issues?