You know, this might even be a good thing. If it looks like silverlight is just being used for annoying ads maybe people will avoid it at first and it'll never take hold!
In related news, has Miguel de Icaza tried to buy a bankrupt ad agency for $6 yet?
Too little, too late? And who's going to come along and sink their ship in that year and a half? If Opera were going to do it, they'd have done it by now. Maybe if Konqueror could be a contender if it goes multiplatform (anywhere that runs KDE plus Windows and maybe a native Mac port) with KDE4/Qt4.
Other than that there really isn't anyone to take their place. Oon windows I highly doubt that you'll see many converts going back to IE, even if microsoft somehow makes it stop sucking with IE8, which I guarantee won't happen anyway.
That's the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard. Unless of course you work for Opera and believe you would somehow benefit from me running it, since extensions are the thing that keeps me using Firefox over Opera even though the gtk dialogs annoy the hell out of me.
I've been saying this for years! Zelda's formula has gotten old in 3D. Especially the combat. Despite enjoying Twilight Princess a lot (a huge surprise to me) they really need to do a full refresh of the formula.
The Wii controls helped keep the combat feeling fresh, where the GameCube falls flat. But the advancements other games have made in dynamic since the release of Ocarina just leave the series feeling like something of a dinosaur.
With their vast resources (even before DS and Wii started printing money) and huge talent pool I except more from Nintendo. I seem to remember Miyamoto saying that TP would be the last Zelda game "as we know it." So hopefully that's a sign of big things to come.
Ok, so let's go back to the GP's example. If Sony has produced 6 million PS3s. They've only managed to sell 3 million at $600. Losing $200 per console they've lost 600 million on the consoles they've sold, but 1.8 billion on the consoles they haven't sold.
Now if they could sell the remaining 3 million PLUS an additional 3 million consoles by cutting the price to $500, they'll lose the same 1.8 billion but they'll have increased their installed base by 200%. Meaning more games sales, since it's pretty safe to bet that most people will pick up at least 1 game. This would be the sensible thing to do if your business model is based around "giving away" the hardware and making it back on software and over-priced accessories.
Obviously this won't account for an 80% cut of losses, but you can see how it would be advantageous for them to cut the price even if they aren't discontinuing the system. This also assumes that PS3 hasn't become cheaper to produce, which it most likely has.
For the loss cutting I'd wager that they claimed a lot of the R&D as losses last fiscal year and without that on the books this year (or less of it anyway) it'll look like they've lost a fuckton less money.
By definition identical circumstances are identical. There is the possibility (that seems very likely) that quantum randomness could alter the outcome even with identical circumstances, but this would still fail to qualify as "free will." To what degree existence is deterministic (and you have to accept that it is at least highly deterministic or you're basically denying reality) can be debated, but the notion of "free will" is completely irrelevant to this argument or any other. AT BEST "free will" means nothing, in all other cases it means less.
"Free will" means at some level you have a choice and can make a decision of your own volition. As if somehow your thought process is not the result of the physical state of your brain, which is a complex construction of basically simple machines. This sort of "magic" abstraction from reality, on its face, is absurd. Of course people have argued over such a silly concept for thousands of years, they didn't know any better. But it is ridiculous that anyone bothers anymore.
Ok, fair enough. Upon re-reading his post I think he might not have been misrepresenting Einstein's use of "God" in the way that people so often do. I still want my +1 Car Analogy moderation, though.
What is it that you think is going on inside your head? Do you think it's magic? Outside of quantum randomness (assuming that it exists, which as far as anyone knows appears to be the case), which is irrelevant to the discussion of "free will" anyway, the exact same thing would happen. If you had "free will" you would be able to choose to make a different decision, which you clearly can't. Philosophy can think about what things might be like, or what they should be like, but nothing in it can change how things are.
Now come back and complain again when you can explain how, barring magic, any sort of "free will" can exist in a physical universe.
You do realize that the "cognitive" process is the side effect of the physical properties of your brain, right? Physics doesn't stop outside your brain just because it helps your ego to think that it does. The only way you'd do something different in any given situation (or any identical one under identical circumstances, which is the same event in any case) is if the theory holds that things at the quantum level are non-deterministic in a way that things larger than the quantum level are not. Either way it has nothing to do with your "cognitive" process.
Einstein wasn't talking about god, don't kid yourself. To say that a theist and a naturalist have the same view on determinism is to say that driving a train is the same as driving a car.
Given what we know about physical objects and with the knowledge that the brain is one such physical object, I think the burden is clearly on the supporters of "free will" to a) prove that it exists and b) explain what it would even mean in the first place. Sounds to me like some ridiculous fantasy told to children to make them feel like they actually have control over something.
The entire concept of free will doesn't even make sense. It's a semantical argument for a problem that doesn't exist. At best it's an irrelevant. You should really ask yourself what "free will" even means in a physical universe. Because it doesn't mean anything at all if you think about it.
Anyone with who is physically identical to you in an identical situation (with the requisite identical past experiences) would do exactly the same thing as you are doing right now and at every moment from now until you're dead. At which point their body would decompose in an identical manner. Physics does not magically govern everything except your brain. Free will, even if it were relevant anywhere outside of philosophy, does not exist.
I thought this was supposed to be stuff that mattered, not stuff that's irrelevant to any and all realistic views of the world?
How many will it take to get back their full monopoly power of the mid-90s, only expanded into every market possible? My guess is at least that many, or as many as they can manage before disintegrating under the weight of their own crappy products.
The USSR didn't have regulation, dipshit. They had government monopoly of production, run by the same kind of crooks we have running our deregulated industries here.
Of course guys from Valve will say this. User created content (primarily CS, but others as well) kept them from having to release a new game for something like SEVEN YEARS!
Slashdot Mirror
xbox 360 only has HDDVD as an external addon. The build-in drive is standard DVD.
You know, this might even be a good thing. If it looks like silverlight is just being used for annoying ads maybe people will avoid it at first and it'll never take hold!
In related news, has Miguel de Icaza tried to buy a bankrupt ad agency for $6 yet?
So what? Did you think that'd be news to me or do you honestly think that the rendering engine is what makes a web browser?
Thanks a lot, jackass! I'd been looking forward to seeing that!
Too little, too late? And who's going to come along and sink their ship in that year and a half? If Opera were going to do it, they'd have done it by now. Maybe if Konqueror could be a contender if it goes multiplatform (anywhere that runs KDE plus Windows and maybe a native Mac port) with KDE4/Qt4.
Other than that there really isn't anyone to take their place. Oon windows I highly doubt that you'll see many converts going back to IE, even if microsoft somehow makes it stop sucking with IE8, which I guarantee won't happen anyway.
That's the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard. Unless of course you work for Opera and believe you would somehow benefit from me running it, since extensions are the thing that keeps me using Firefox over Opera even though the gtk dialogs annoy the hell out of me.
The article is missing the key, who's got it? I need to start a protest on digg!
I've been saying this for years! Zelda's formula has gotten old in 3D. Especially the combat. Despite enjoying Twilight Princess a lot (a huge surprise to me) they really need to do a full refresh of the formula.
The Wii controls helped keep the combat feeling fresh, where the GameCube falls flat. But the advancements other games have made in dynamic since the release of Ocarina just leave the series feeling like something of a dinosaur.
With their vast resources (even before DS and Wii started printing money) and huge talent pool I except more from Nintendo. I seem to remember Miyamoto saying that TP would be the last Zelda game "as we know it." So hopefully that's a sign of big things to come.
I think you're confusing your checkbook with your notepad...
Ok, so let's go back to the GP's example. If Sony has produced 6 million PS3s. They've only managed to sell 3 million at $600. Losing $200 per console they've lost 600 million on the consoles they've sold, but 1.8 billion on the consoles they haven't sold.
Now if they could sell the remaining 3 million PLUS an additional 3 million consoles by cutting the price to $500, they'll lose the same 1.8 billion but they'll have increased their installed base by 200%. Meaning more games sales, since it's pretty safe to bet that most people will pick up at least 1 game. This would be the sensible thing to do if your business model is based around "giving away" the hardware and making it back on software and over-priced accessories.
Obviously this won't account for an 80% cut of losses, but you can see how it would be advantageous for them to cut the price even if they aren't discontinuing the system. This also assumes that PS3 hasn't become cheaper to produce, which it most likely has.
For the loss cutting I'd wager that they claimed a lot of the R&D as losses last fiscal year and without that on the books this year (or less of it anyway) it'll look like they've lost a fuckton less money.
Exactly! At the rate they're going the next windows should hit retail sometime around 2017.
By definition identical circumstances are identical. There is the possibility (that seems very likely) that quantum randomness could alter the outcome even with identical circumstances, but this would still fail to qualify as "free will." To what degree existence is deterministic (and you have to accept that it is at least highly deterministic or you're basically denying reality) can be debated, but the notion of "free will" is completely irrelevant to this argument or any other. AT BEST "free will" means nothing, in all other cases it means less.
"Free will" means at some level you have a choice and can make a decision of your own volition. As if somehow your thought process is not the result of the physical state of your brain, which is a complex construction of basically simple machines. This sort of "magic" abstraction from reality, on its face, is absurd. Of course people have argued over such a silly concept for thousands of years, they didn't know any better. But it is ridiculous that anyone bothers anymore.
Ok, fair enough. Upon re-reading his post I think he might not have been misrepresenting Einstein's use of "God" in the way that people so often do. I still want my +1 Car Analogy moderation, though.
What is it that you think is going on inside your head? Do you think it's magic? Outside of quantum randomness (assuming that it exists, which as far as anyone knows appears to be the case), which is irrelevant to the discussion of "free will" anyway, the exact same thing would happen. If you had "free will" you would be able to choose to make a different decision, which you clearly can't. Philosophy can think about what things might be like, or what they should be like, but nothing in it can change how things are.
Now come back and complain again when you can explain how, barring magic, any sort of "free will" can exist in a physical universe.
You do realize that the "cognitive" process is the side effect of the physical properties of your brain, right? Physics doesn't stop outside your brain just because it helps your ego to think that it does. The only way you'd do something different in any given situation (or any identical one under identical circumstances, which is the same event in any case) is if the theory holds that things at the quantum level are non-deterministic in a way that things larger than the quantum level are not. Either way it has nothing to do with your "cognitive" process.
Einstein wasn't talking about god, don't kid yourself. To say that a theist and a naturalist have the same view on determinism is to say that driving a train is the same as driving a car.
Given what we know about physical objects and with the knowledge that the brain is one such physical object, I think the burden is clearly on the supporters of "free will" to a) prove that it exists and b) explain what it would even mean in the first place. Sounds to me like some ridiculous fantasy told to children to make them feel like they actually have control over something.
The entire concept of free will doesn't even make sense. It's a semantical argument for a problem that doesn't exist. At best it's an irrelevant. You should really ask yourself what "free will" even means in a physical universe. Because it doesn't mean anything at all if you think about it.
Anyone with who is physically identical to you in an identical situation (with the requisite identical past experiences) would do exactly the same thing as you are doing right now and at every moment from now until you're dead. At which point their body would decompose in an identical manner. Physics does not magically govern everything except your brain. Free will, even if it were relevant anywhere outside of philosophy, does not exist.
I thought this was supposed to be stuff that mattered, not stuff that's irrelevant to any and all realistic views of the world?
How many will it take to get back their full monopoly power of the mid-90s, only expanded into every market possible? My guess is at least that many, or as many as they can manage before disintegrating under the weight of their own crappy products.
Who else thinks they're running behind and wanted to see if they could push back the releases without scaring the sheep?
The USSR didn't have regulation, dipshit. They had government monopoly of production, run by the same kind of crooks we have running our deregulated industries here.
Of course guys from Valve will say this. User created content (primarily CS, but others as well) kept them from having to release a new game for something like SEVEN YEARS!
Three rights however do make a left.
As soon as it does the same with people who don't know that you don't "that" people.