I guess you missed that old NeXT demo Slashdot posted earlier in the year where Steve Jobs demonstrates NeXT object-oriented programming and interface builder.
It is unclear whether the investigation is related to a recent push by music companies for variable pricing in digital downloads.
It's really interesting to me that Sony and Warner were the first served with subpoenas, though others apparently will be sent to other labels in the future. Warner has been the most vocal about variable pricing, and Sony has outright been refusing to cooperate with Apple in countries like Japan (to their peril...iTunes is now at 60% share and climbing).
Variable pricing will be stupid. Labels already make a higher percentage of money on digital downloads than CD sales, and they want more--and it's a guarantee that you won't be songs less than.99. It'd be.99 and up. They want to charge $2.00 a song as with cell phone ringtones (God bless the morons buying ringtones for two bucks apiece). Users will just go back to pirating and ripping CDs. Steve Jobs doesn't care, because people will still be using iPods to store it all. The iTunes Music Store was a nice favor to the record industry to give people legal rips to put on their iPods.
Really? Then why does my CPU-usage spike up when I move and resize windows in my Mac Mini?
Any number of reasons, but I repeat because it's 100% true--moving a window is a GPU-based graphics operation. It's just blitting to a different place via the GPU. If you don't believe me, I don't know what else to say, kid. It's completely true. Windows in OS X are OpenGL faces, which is how you get things like Expose.
Yeah, the reviewers at Ars Technica don't know what they are talking about. And all those people complaining around the net about the sluggish window-operations in OS X are wrong as well. Because, as we all know, everything in OS X is fast and perfect.
Your only retort is overt exaggeration and sarcasm. Whatever. Your appeal to consensus is meaningless. Dragging a window is NOT SLUGGISH on a Mac mini. It's totally smooth. Window resizing isn't the smoothest, but that improved vastly in Tiger, particularly resizing Finder windows. But you said moving windows around, which is completely smooth on a Mac mini and even my old iBook. It's just blitting to a different area on screen.
It's absolutely clear there's something else going on with your machine. Either that or you're lying for karma points.
But that's only a small part of it. Window management, damage, rendering, automation, and a lot of other facilities are far better designed and more powerful in X11 than on other platforms.
Can you actually offer an example? You keep saying X11 is ahead and others are behind without citing anything. Lots has been written--some of it by Apple devs--about the limitations of X11.
Rendering? OS X is blitting using the GPU and drawing in a subset of Postscript (PDF) for pixel perfect display. You're actually claiming X11 is superior in this realm? Dragging a window in X11 causes all kinds of fun, ugly tearing, and there's no vector-based resolution-independence support.
I suggest you search Slashdot and find the post from an Apple dev who explains exactly why X11 would have sucked for OS X and why they started from scratch with their own superior system, Quartz and WindowServer, which kick the pants off X11. Next year, both Windows and OS X will be drawing widgets entirely on the GPU, scaling to compensate for any resolution so that they're always the same size. Where will X11 be?
While you were busy doing all that work to keep a game console from overheating, I was busy playing Mario Kart DS on Wi-fi and setting aside some cash for the ultra-small Nintendo Revolution next March.:) I guarantee there won't be any heating issues there.
Congratulations, you've won the Consumer Whore award!
Your post was chosen for the following insane qualities:
1.) You suggest a living room/bedroom consumer device should not have anything sitting on carpet. So much for living rooms/bedrooms across the nation that have carpets.
2.) You--with all seriousness, mind you--declare your intent to actually mount your X-Box 360 in a PC case. So much for the design and convenience of a small game console. It's rather like buying a $400 iPod only to end up mounting it in a giant boombox. Millions the world over wonder immediately why you don't just buy a PC in the first place.
And, uh, you are aware that the XBox360 is a followup to something called the XBox? I think that little piece of hardware may fall in to the "sophisticated" category.;-)
The first X-Box was a big PC in a box. Literally, if you open it up, it's a bunch of standard computer parts. I'd call that "good marketing in getting people to buy a keyboard-less PC," but not sophisticated hardware design.
The thing is, correlation does suggest causality, and in this case it is likely because *we understand the mechanism by which our actions cause global warming*.
Nothing has been proven to show that it is "likely." Correlation != causality is an important scientific idea to prevent people from jumping to conclusions based on a symptom that might be caused by something else.
We know what we're pumping into the atmosphere, and we have solid science and chemistry that allows us to understand how the chemicals we are pumping into the atmosphere can affect climate.
What we're pumping into the atmosphere is a total of 0.27% of the Earth's greenhouse gases. The rest are completely natural, most of which comes from volcanic eruptions and natural water vapor.
You're right; I'm aware of that interpretation, mostly illustrated by climate models in which sulfate aerosols are added. For anyone else more interested, here is the Wikipedia article on , which mentions:
As a result of observations (aerosol concentrations may have increased, but not enormously) and a switch to cleaner fuel burning, this no longer seems likely: the overwhelming bulk of current scientific work concentrates on the forcing, prediction and understanding of possible global warming.
Really, my point is that a lot of people have leapt to the conclusion we're the cause despite a lack of hard proof. Most of the temperature rise occurred before the majority of carbon dioxide had been released into the atmosphere by us.
CO2 in the atmosphere is mainly volcanic in origin, accounting for 97% of the CO2 found in the atmosphere, most of which travels to the oceans. Estimates at CO2's effectiveness as a greenhouse gas vary, but are generally around 10-100 times lower than water weight for weight, leaving a "net" greenhouse effect of man-made CO2 emmissions at less than 1%
The precise figure is around a 0.27% contribution from mankind.
Those "several billion internal combustion vehicles and hundreds of thousands of gasoline-burning and jet fuel-burning aircaft" contribute only 0.27% of greenhouse gases. With water vapor taken out of the equation, we contribute 5.53%.
Water vapor is one of the so-called harmful greenhouse gases. It seems you haven't really looked at the numbers and just decided to react to my post. I posted this elsewhere, but here's a link with sources.
All I'm saying is there is no proven link that mankind is causing global warming, and there are plenty of possibilities that it is part of a natural cycle based on various opposing evidence. So I took issue with the emotive headline of this Slashdot article that declared humanity responsible for climate change.
Basically, your post was a flamebait stereotyping of anybody who might have an opposing viewpoint.
There is no hard link proving humans are causing anything. All you have is "correlation = causality" and how many times have Slashdotters pointed out that one does not equal the other? If we want to look at correlation, solar activity is the highest it's ever been right now, and it's often been theorized in the past that there is a link. And you mock anyone who brings up all the "new Ice Age" talk from the 70s. Why? It's a valid point--people were saying back then that we were COOLING (due to the dip in temperatures at the time). Now we're WARMING (due to a rise in temperatures since).
Temperatures DIPPED from the 1940s to the 1970s, which suggests we're not causing any steady upramp of temperatures. When you add up the numbers (including natural water vapors), mankind only contributes about 0.27% of greenhouse gases. But these kinds of figures don't get discussed here, for some reason. They are dismissed as looney, just as you are doing. For some reason, a lot of people, particularly on Slashdot, have just assumed it's some sort of universal consensus that mankind has been proven to be the cause, that the evil Bush administration and their capitalist minions (who remind you of Scientologists--good dig there) are seeking to hide the numbers.
You make reference to a "mountain of evidence." But there is no provable mountain of evidence. The fact there is debate on the issue proves as much. There is plenty of opposing evidence and opinion. Many have written about the fact that many environmentalists are going into environmental science already believing that there is a natural dilemma caused by mankind--pre-made assumptions that they are looking to prove, instead of the other way around. And if you go against the majority, you get attacked. Look at what happened to the author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist."
A lot of people use global warming as an excuse to revel in their self-loathing, rattling on about companies and mankind and industry while ignoring the lack of any provable link and the hard numbers that suggest we're a negligible threat to the environment.
But hey, go on dismissing and stereotyping instead of calmly discussing it.
Notice you don't offer an explanation. I find it telling I'm marked as "Overrated" while you've got a nice karma bonus.
Here's the temperature record. Are you telling me that the mere existence of that graph proves a link to humans? Despite a 0.27% contribution of greenhouse gases by humans? There's more CO2 released from the natural exchange of water vapor in the environment than from us. Also, notice the plateau and dip in temperatures in the graph, which refutes the idea that it's been a very steady increase in gases since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
All I'm saying is, it's silly to jump to any conclusions when there is opposing evidence, opposing opinion, and a lack of any hard proven link.
I was discussing the global warming issue just last Tuesday with someone who was very adamant that humans are responsible for everything. As I offered more and more opposing evidence suggesting that there is no definitive proof that mankind is responsible, he grew more and more emotional until he told me "attitudes like yours are why the planet is going to hell" and wouldn't discuss it further. Unfortunately, these kinds of responses are common when you're trying to rationally discuss climate change and point out that correlation does not equal causality, and that a proven link has not been made. Most of the time, you see lots of "consensus science" used as a debate point--as in, "Well, so-and-so organization says we're responsible and these guys say we're responsible."
I subscribe to what I call my "1/3 the hype" theory. When you see a lot of hype over something, reduce it to 1/3 of itself and believe that instead. E.g., "Linux on the desktop this year is going to take over!" becomes Linux will make a few gains here and there. And "mankind is responsible for everything according to correlation in some figures!" means there's some possibility we're responsible but no hard links yet.
Besides, when someone mentions that temperatures are higher, they always neglect to mention that temps actually dipped from the 40s to the 70s, giving the impression that it's just been a steady, consistent ramp upward with no variation, when it hasn't. And it is misleading to omit that fact.
I take issue with the conclusion of this submission headline, as there is plenty of evidence suggesting the possibility that we're not much of a contribution at all. I have yet to hear explanations for why temperatures actually DROPPED from the 1940s to the 1970s despite an increase in our use of automobiles and other gases. Not to mention that when you add the numbers up and take into account water vapor, mankind is only responsible for--wait for it--0.27% of the so-called greenhouse gases.
So, as Penn & Teller put it in their Bullshit! episode on the matter, we're still gathering data. So stop jumping to conclusions!
The first is that their first goal isn't to see how much profit they can squeeze from a product. Profits take a back seat to making a better product.
God, why do Slashdotters fall over themselves in love with Google and say goofy things like this? You don't know Google's motives. You just love them so much that you think this. Everything Google does is driven by whether or not they can sell advertising--it's ALL ABOUT how much profit they can squeeze from a product.
Profits take a back seat? Hahahahaha...in a business, profit is front seat. You make products to make profit.
It's true. The Playstation 3 has the appeal of being the top-of-the-line, Blu-ray equipped mega-machine for hardcore gamers, and the Revolution is the very affordable little machine for the general public with the cool input device. X-Box 360 is sandwiched in the middle here as an overly expensive middleground machine with no real new technologies other than processing upgrades from its predecessor and some broken backwards compatibility. PS3 and Revo will be able to play all their past games.
I admit it--I hate this console because it's from Microsoft. It's true. There are some other factors, but I'll sum it all up:
1.) I hate that this is just Microsoft's lame attempt to further their platform into the living room. Microsoft sooo does not belong in the game console market. They make Office software, for Christ's sake. Thank goodness Apple got their shit together and ran away with digital media via the iPod, or else Microsoft might have had a greater chance at conquering the living room. Right now, it's not looking too good for them.
2.) The first X-Box was just a PC in a box. Literally, opening it up revealed standard PC parts. That they duped an entire market into buying it astonishes and frustrates me. The articles I've read have stated that the X-Box 360 is still very PC-like, but at least it's smaller this time.
3.) The name is stupid and personifies what I hate about this machine and its community. Microsoft's marketing drones, in trying to decide how they'd market to drooling middle school gamers, thought "Well, gee, they'll see the '3' after Playstation 3 and think it's better than the '2' after X-Box 2. But we can't call it X-Box 3." Then they turn to their young, "dynamic" new guy they hired from an MTV marketing firm. "What would sound hardcore and hip to the kiddies?" "I've got it! It's better than 3, because it's 360!!!" And thus, a stupid market-drone name, X-Box 360, was born.
4.) The game library will mostly just be PC ports and Playstation ports. Another reason I wonder why anybody ever bothered with the original X-Box.
5.) It's more of the same. Same kind of controller as before, graphics that aren't as impressive as I was imagining "next-gen" to be. Even the shills on G4 were giving grades of "B" and "B-" to this thing. At least with the Playstation 3, it has the appeal of being the absolute top hardware and will have "edgy" new things like Blu-ray, and the Nintendo Revolution has the appeal of being the cheapest with the coolest new input device. They have their markets to appeal to. X-Box 360 is in the middle here.
6.) Again, it's Microsoft just trying desperately to further their platform. What annoys me is that they'll use all their billions of marketing dollars to blast this into everybody's faces as hard as they can, regardless of the console's actual quality. Instead of letting the product sell itself based on its own value, as other companies do (a cliched example, but see Apple and its iPod...all Steve Jobs had to do was hold up an iPod nano to the camera, and everyone was SOLD on it), this thing is just a shareholder-driven profit grab initiated by managers looking for new markets to "get a hold on," and not a genuinely fantastic product from a company that actually makes games and game consoles and belongs in that market.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention the fact that Steve Jobs do
I guess you missed that old NeXT demo Slashdot posted earlier in the year where Steve Jobs demonstrates NeXT object-oriented programming and interface builder.
You win double Slashdot XP points for your use of "M$" four times in one paragraph! Congrats! You are enlightened, sir.
Maybe Microsoft jumped ship when NBC decided to offer their shows on iTunes? Apple is a competitor to Microsoft in digital media.
From the article:
.99. It'd be .99 and up. They want to charge $2.00 a song as with cell phone ringtones (God bless the morons buying ringtones for two bucks apiece). Users will just go back to pirating and ripping CDs. Steve Jobs doesn't care, because people will still be using iPods to store it all. The iTunes Music Store was a nice favor to the record industry to give people legal rips to put on their iPods.
It is unclear whether the investigation is related to a recent push by music companies for variable pricing in digital downloads.
It's really interesting to me that Sony and Warner were the first served with subpoenas, though others apparently will be sent to other labels in the future. Warner has been the most vocal about variable pricing, and Sony has outright been refusing to cooperate with Apple in countries like Japan (to their peril...iTunes is now at 60% share and climbing).
Variable pricing will be stupid. Labels already make a higher percentage of money on digital downloads than CD sales, and they want more--and it's a guarantee that you won't be songs less than
Really? Then why does my CPU-usage spike up when I move and resize windows in my Mac Mini?
Any number of reasons, but I repeat because it's 100% true--moving a window is a GPU-based graphics operation. It's just blitting to a different place via the GPU. If you don't believe me, I don't know what else to say, kid. It's completely true. Windows in OS X are OpenGL faces, which is how you get things like Expose.
Yeah, the reviewers at Ars Technica don't know what they are talking about. And all those people complaining around the net about the sluggish window-operations in OS X are wrong as well. Because, as we all know, everything in OS X is fast and perfect.
Your only retort is overt exaggeration and sarcasm. Whatever. Your appeal to consensus is meaningless. Dragging a window is NOT SLUGGISH on a Mac mini. It's totally smooth. Window resizing isn't the smoothest, but that improved vastly in Tiger, particularly resizing Finder windows. But you said moving windows around, which is completely smooth on a Mac mini and even my old iBook. It's just blitting to a different area on screen.
It's absolutely clear there's something else going on with your machine. Either that or you're lying for karma points.
Next.
But that's only a small part of it. Window management, damage, rendering, automation, and a lot of other facilities are far better designed and more powerful in X11 than on other platforms.
Can you actually offer an example? You keep saying X11 is ahead and others are behind without citing anything. Lots has been written--some of it by Apple devs--about the limitations of X11.
Rendering? OS X is blitting using the GPU and drawing in a subset of Postscript (PDF) for pixel perfect display. You're actually claiming X11 is superior in this realm? Dragging a window in X11 causes all kinds of fun, ugly tearing, and there's no vector-based resolution-independence support.
I suggest you search Slashdot and find the post from an Apple dev who explains exactly why X11 would have sucked for OS X and why they started from scratch with their own superior system, Quartz and WindowServer, which kick the pants off X11. Next year, both Windows and OS X will be drawing widgets entirely on the GPU, scaling to compensate for any resolution so that they're always the same size. Where will X11 be?
The parent uses the phrase "New York bankers," a common reference to Jews among anti-semites (as well as "Jew York"). Please mod down for ignorance.
While you were busy doing all that work to keep a game console from overheating, I was busy playing Mario Kart DS on Wi-fi and setting aside some cash for the ultra-small Nintendo Revolution next March. :) I guarantee there won't be any heating issues there.
Congratulations, you've won the Consumer Whore award!
Your post was chosen for the following insane qualities:
1.) You suggest a living room/bedroom consumer device should not have anything sitting on carpet. So much for living rooms/bedrooms across the nation that have carpets.
2.) You--with all seriousness, mind you--declare your intent to actually mount your X-Box 360 in a PC case. So much for the design and convenience of a small game console. It's rather like buying a $400 iPod only to end up mounting it in a giant boombox. Millions the world over wonder immediately why you don't just buy a PC in the first place.
Thank you for your playing!
And, uh, you are aware that the XBox360 is a followup to something called the XBox? I think that little piece of hardware may fall in to the "sophisticated" category. ;-)
The first X-Box was a big PC in a box. Literally, if you open it up, it's a bunch of standard computer parts. I'd call that "good marketing in getting people to buy a keyboard-less PC," but not sophisticated hardware design.
So instead they say "Website: getfirefox." They used to say "AOL keyword: blah."
I think you're way overestimating the value of the dot. A lot of people don't use the extension anyway. The browser tacks it on.
The thing is, correlation does suggest causality, and in this case it is likely because *we understand the mechanism by which our actions cause global warming*.
Nothing has been proven to show that it is "likely." Correlation != causality is an important scientific idea to prevent people from jumping to conclusions based on a symptom that might be caused by something else.
We know what we're pumping into the atmosphere, and we have solid science and chemistry that allows us to understand how the chemicals we are pumping into the atmosphere can affect climate.
What we're pumping into the atmosphere is a total of 0.27% of the Earth's greenhouse gases. The rest are completely natural, most of which comes from volcanic eruptions and natural water vapor.
Really, my point is that a lot of people have leapt to the conclusion we're the cause despite a lack of hard proof. Most of the temperature rise occurred before the majority of carbon dioxide had been released into the atmosphere by us.
The precise figure is around a 0.27% contribution from mankind.
Those "several billion internal combustion vehicles and hundreds of thousands of gasoline-burning and jet fuel-burning aircaft" contribute only 0.27% of greenhouse gases. With water vapor taken out of the equation, we contribute 5.53%.
Water vapor is one of the so-called harmful greenhouse gases. It seems you haven't really looked at the numbers and just decided to react to my post. I posted this elsewhere, but here's a link with sources.
All I'm saying is there is no proven link that mankind is causing global warming, and there are plenty of possibilities that it is part of a natural cycle based on various opposing evidence. So I took issue with the emotive headline of this Slashdot article that declared humanity responsible for climate change.
Basically, your post was a flamebait stereotyping of anybody who might have an opposing viewpoint.
There is no hard link proving humans are causing anything. All you have is "correlation = causality" and how many times have Slashdotters pointed out that one does not equal the other? If we want to look at correlation, solar activity is the highest it's ever been right now, and it's often been theorized in the past that there is a link. And you mock anyone who brings up all the "new Ice Age" talk from the 70s. Why? It's a valid point--people were saying back then that we were COOLING (due to the dip in temperatures at the time). Now we're WARMING (due to a rise in temperatures since).
Temperatures DIPPED from the 1940s to the 1970s, which suggests we're not causing any steady upramp of temperatures. When you add up the numbers (including natural water vapors), mankind only contributes about 0.27% of greenhouse gases. But these kinds of figures don't get discussed here, for some reason. They are dismissed as looney, just as you are doing. For some reason, a lot of people, particularly on Slashdot, have just assumed it's some sort of universal consensus that mankind has been proven to be the cause, that the evil Bush administration and their capitalist minions (who remind you of Scientologists--good dig there) are seeking to hide the numbers.
You make reference to a "mountain of evidence." But there is no provable mountain of evidence. The fact there is debate on the issue proves as much. There is plenty of opposing evidence and opinion. Many have written about the fact that many environmentalists are going into environmental science already believing that there is a natural dilemma caused by mankind--pre-made assumptions that they are looking to prove, instead of the other way around. And if you go against the majority, you get attacked. Look at what happened to the author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist."
A lot of people use global warming as an excuse to revel in their self-loathing, rattling on about companies and mankind and industry while ignoring the lack of any provable link and the hard numbers that suggest we're a negligible threat to the environment.
But hey, go on dismissing and stereotyping instead of calmly discussing it.
Gee, I can't argue with that kind of research!
Notice you don't offer an explanation. I find it telling I'm marked as "Overrated" while you've got a nice karma bonus.
Here's the temperature record. Are you telling me that the mere existence of that graph proves a link to humans? Despite a 0.27% contribution of greenhouse gases by humans? There's more CO2 released from the natural exchange of water vapor in the environment than from us. Also, notice the plateau and dip in temperatures in the graph, which refutes the idea that it's been a very steady increase in gases since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
All I'm saying is, it's silly to jump to any conclusions when there is opposing evidence, opposing opinion, and a lack of any hard proven link.
Forgot to post the link where I got the 0.27% number from: Global warming--a closer look at the numbers
I was discussing the global warming issue just last Tuesday with someone who was very adamant that humans are responsible for everything. As I offered more and more opposing evidence suggesting that there is no definitive proof that mankind is responsible, he grew more and more emotional until he told me "attitudes like yours are why the planet is going to hell" and wouldn't discuss it further. Unfortunately, these kinds of responses are common when you're trying to rationally discuss climate change and point out that correlation does not equal causality, and that a proven link has not been made. Most of the time, you see lots of "consensus science" used as a debate point--as in, "Well, so-and-so organization says we're responsible and these guys say we're responsible."
I subscribe to what I call my "1/3 the hype" theory. When you see a lot of hype over something, reduce it to 1/3 of itself and believe that instead. E.g., "Linux on the desktop this year is going to take over!" becomes Linux will make a few gains here and there. And "mankind is responsible for everything according to correlation in some figures!" means there's some possibility we're responsible but no hard links yet.
Besides, when someone mentions that temperatures are higher, they always neglect to mention that temps actually dipped from the 40s to the 70s, giving the impression that it's just been a steady, consistent ramp upward with no variation, when it hasn't. And it is misleading to omit that fact.
I take issue with the conclusion of this submission headline, as there is plenty of evidence suggesting the possibility that we're not much of a contribution at all. I have yet to hear explanations for why temperatures actually DROPPED from the 1940s to the 1970s despite an increase in our use of automobiles and other gases. Not to mention that when you add the numbers up and take into account water vapor, mankind is only responsible for--wait for it--0.27% of the so-called greenhouse gases.
So, as Penn & Teller put it in their Bullshit! episode on the matter, we're still gathering data. So stop jumping to conclusions!
The first is that their first goal isn't to see how much profit they can squeeze from a product. Profits take a back seat to making a better product.
God, why do Slashdotters fall over themselves in love with Google and say goofy things like this? You don't know Google's motives. You just love them so much that you think this. Everything Google does is driven by whether or not they can sell advertising--it's ALL ABOUT how much profit they can squeeze from a product.
Profits take a back seat? Hahahahaha...in a business, profit is front seat. You make products to make profit.
Why is it silly for projects to compete? Each project tries to cater to as many people as it can. That's how it works.
It's true. The Playstation 3 has the appeal of being the top-of-the-line, Blu-ray equipped mega-machine for hardcore gamers, and the Revolution is the very affordable little machine for the general public with the cool input device. X-Box 360 is sandwiched in the middle here as an overly expensive middleground machine with no real new technologies other than processing upgrades from its predecessor and some broken backwards compatibility. PS3 and Revo will be able to play all their past games.
I admit it--I hate this console because it's from Microsoft. It's true. There are some other factors, but I'll sum it all up:
1.) I hate that this is just Microsoft's lame attempt to further their platform into the living room. Microsoft sooo does not belong in the game console market. They make Office software, for Christ's sake. Thank goodness Apple got their shit together and ran away with digital media via the iPod, or else Microsoft might have had a greater chance at conquering the living room. Right now, it's not looking too good for them.
2.) The first X-Box was just a PC in a box. Literally, opening it up revealed standard PC parts. That they duped an entire market into buying it astonishes and frustrates me. The articles I've read have stated that the X-Box 360 is still very PC-like, but at least it's smaller this time.
3.) The name is stupid and personifies what I hate about this machine and its community. Microsoft's marketing drones, in trying to decide how they'd market to drooling middle school gamers, thought "Well, gee, they'll see the '3' after Playstation 3 and think it's better than the '2' after X-Box 2. But we can't call it X-Box 3." Then they turn to their young, "dynamic" new guy they hired from an MTV marketing firm. "What would sound hardcore and hip to the kiddies?" "I've got it! It's better than 3, because it's 360!!!" And thus, a stupid market-drone name, X-Box 360, was born.
4.) The game library will mostly just be PC ports and Playstation ports. Another reason I wonder why anybody ever bothered with the original X-Box.
5.) It's more of the same. Same kind of controller as before, graphics that aren't as impressive as I was imagining "next-gen" to be. Even the shills on G4 were giving grades of "B" and "B-" to this thing. At least with the Playstation 3, it has the appeal of being the absolute top hardware and will have "edgy" new things like Blu-ray, and the Nintendo Revolution has the appeal of being the cheapest with the coolest new input device. They have their markets to appeal to. X-Box 360 is in the middle here.
6.) Again, it's Microsoft just trying desperately to further their platform. What annoys me is that they'll use all their billions of marketing dollars to blast this into everybody's faces as hard as they can, regardless of the console's actual quality. Instead of letting the product sell itself based on its own value, as other companies do (a cliched example, but see Apple and its iPod...all Steve Jobs had to do was hold up an iPod nano to the camera, and everyone was SOLD on it), this thing is just a shareholder-driven profit grab initiated by managers looking for new markets to "get a hold on," and not a genuinely fantastic product from a company that actually makes games and game consoles and belongs in that market.
Three dupes? Try SIX. SIX DUPES.
At what point do you ask the question, why don't the editors read their own site?
Who the FUCK is bonch? Idiot.
Congratulations on duping this comment from earlier in the discussion.