Well, good for Gwyneth Paltrow. Is she a good enough actress to convince me she's in the freezing cold if she's being filmed in a climate-controlled studio in L.A.?
That would be Dr. Issac Asimov. Also, according to the usual source, "It is a mark of the friendship and respect accorded Asimov by Arthur C. Clarke that the so-called "Asimov-Clarke Treaty of Park Avenue", put together as they shared a cab ride along Park Avenue in New York, stated that Asimov was required to insist that Clarke was the best science fiction writer in the world (reserving second best for himself), while Clarke was required to insist that Asimov was the best science writer in the world (reserving second best for himself)."
One guy brought in a roll of film with hardcore sandwitching some kids birthday party on the roll. Geeze!
Back in the day, I only had one roll of film at once, and it took weeks to finish a roll. When I had a roll developed, it would have every single picture I'd taken for a month--so if this guy was anything like me, he had a lot of hardcore sex the same month his kid had a birthday party. That's not too strange, even though it might look like it when you develop the roll.
We had one issue where the girl looked a little young, so we gave the guy a chance to have her, with ID come in and she could pick up the photos. She showed up, and the ID was good (honestly didn't look fake), thing is, her hair was noticeably shorter in the pics and she had turned 18 only a week? before. we let her have the photos, for lack of proof that she was underage, but it made my stomach churn.
You know, in many states, the age of consent is 16. What this means is that it's legal to have a 16 year old girlfriend, legal to see her naked body in person, legal to touch her naked body, even to have sex with her--but taking pictures makes you a felon. This is an absurd little blind spot in the law, but never in my life did I think people so bought into the letter of the law for their "stomach" to be "churned" by people violating such absurd laws. The law can be wrong--and when it is wrong, my stomach is churned by people like you who can't get past a bad law.
I don't want to call everyone over to my computer to watch a movie. I want to sit down on my nice couch in front of a large screen with decent speakers and enjoy a movie or game.
Do you go sit on your couch to browse websites? Or, alternatively, do you find a $500 game console more economical than a DVI cable you can hook your notebook to when you come home?
Wait. That isn't the argument you've pressed in your post. Your argument is, "I already have a device that does that, therefore a PS3 is not worth it to anyone."
Most people already have PC's. Poorly replicating the existing features of existing PC's is thus not a very good way of adding value to a gaming console.
Since when does the MSRP of an object vary based off what's in your house?
I wasn't aware we disagreed over the MSRP of the PlayStation 3. As I recall, it's around $500, which is hundreds more than the Wii or Xbox 360. Our disagreement is over whether or not it's worth that for consumers in the console market.
Are you suggesting that you should get a discount on a car because you already own another? Should an ear of corn cost less because I have a tomato? Both are edible, after all...
I'm saying that, if I already own a car, it makes no sense to buy a second car because "you can drive it places." If I already own a tomato, "you can eat it" is not a compelling reason to buy an ear of corn. And, more to the point, if I already own a computer and I'm going console shopping, I'm not going to buy a more expensive console because it poorly does the same things my computer already does. Neither are, according to the sales reports, the thousands of people every month who choose to buy Wiis and PS2's instead of PS3's.
But besides that, your post is argumentative and you're demanding I justify a PS3 to you. I don't know you, I don't care to know you. All I can say is that, given a feature list like that, $500 is a very competitive market price.
I'm criticizing an argument that you made--if you don't wish your arguments to be criticized, it would behoove you not to make them in a public forum. My point remains the same--the "feature list" you give for the PlayStation 3 is already redundant with the other devices that most people already own--especially if they're in the market for "luxury products".
If I only wanted to play PS2 and PS3 games, the PS3 would be worth like $200-$300 to me. $350 if I was rich. The extra "entertainment hub" features you mention provide no value to me because I already have those features, so it's a fallacy to factor them into the value of the PS3 to me, or anyone else with a recently-made computer.
With the exception of multi-booting multiple operating systems I'm not seeing anything the PS3 can't do that your $600 computer can.
Right, if it runs Linux (which means I have to buy it from...well...some unnamed vendor that you assert "does exist", or install it myself, neither of which the typical user is going to do). Having tried Ubuntu, I'd pick it over Windows, but not much else. Keep in mind that I was working within your $600 computer budget--my actual computer costs more than $600, but it's a bit faster, has a built-in screen, supports dual displays, has FireWire.... Oh, yes, and like most people who would buy a PS3, I already have my computer, so saying I can use my PS3 as a computer if I try really hard still gives me no additional value.
PC gaming might be better on certain technical levels (since PC's get graphics technology quicker, and get deeper games like Civilization), but console gaming is a whole different banana, and enjoying that banana for what it is is a good reason to get a console. (Of course, I vividly remember the era where "computer game" and "video game" were totally separate concepts.) I said PS3 was decent because, frankly, it's just an HD-resolution, overpowered version of what we had since the 90's, with a crippled PC and a lame Second LIfe ripoff bolted on, and "damn good" is a judgment I prefer to reserve for revolutionary changes like the Wii.
Just because you found a couple of idiots willing to mod you up doesn't mean you made a coherent point. You're complaining about being poor, but you bought a sports car? You're complaining about not being well-paid due to living in a poor city, but you're not clever enough to move? And then, after having already given me two obvious examples of ways you could have made things better for yourself (not wasted money on a sports car, and moved to a less impoverished city), you expect the government to help you out? What, do you want the Republicans to buy you a fucking helicopter, or all the high-octane gasoline you want?
Although, before trying to do any of that, you should work a little on your English. No self-respecting employer would hire anyone whose cover letter or resume was as poorly written and utterly unfocused as your comments.
By "eject can" I don't mean it would actually throw the can at you. You would still have to get up and walk to the PS3 to get the can. And then after two beers, you have to reload the PS3 from your fridge again.
Someone might want to do all those things specifically on their console
Yeah, and someone might really want to do their taxes on the front panel of their refrigerator.
As long as you're going as far as you have, you might as well say "I can play games on my PC, thus I don't need any console at all!"
Except a great video card ends up costing more than most consoles, and a PC makes a less predictable platform, so there are good reasons for consoles. It works like this--consoles are better at playing video games, PC's are better at being PC's. Except the PS3, which makes a shitty PC, a decent game console if HD is the only differentiating feature for you, and a surprisingly good scientific computation node.
For someone like be that has no desktop box and uses laptops exclusively having a fixed box entertainment hub is a good thing
I have a mobile entertainment hub. And when I hook up my external 250 GB hard drive, speakers, and external screen, I have an even better entertainment hub.
and a decent performance network ready computer (another $600)
For $600, I can get a computer that can run office suites, stand-alone IM, email, and calendar apps, my choice of browsers, IRC, alarm clocks, VLC, the IDE and compiler of my choosing, upscales DVDs to arbitrary resolution, will hook up to an HDTV (or any other display), stores and displays video and audio content, and can download said content over the internet, free or paid, legally or illegally, serves as a sync hub for my iPod and cell phone, downloads pictures from my digital camera, downloads and edits video from a DV camera, does my taxes, budgets my personal expenses, edits audio, runs Google Earth, multitasks between each and every one of these functions at the same time, and will run my choice of at least three operating systems, either in a multiboot or VM configuration. Will the PS3 do all of these out of the box?
I took out the bits about the Sony online store, and just left in the item about "online content". Technically, that includes the wide world of BitTorrent, and I did concede a "different selection".
Most computers are busy doing other things, and make.
I'm actually rather ashamed to admit this, but my computer doesn't actually run make often enough to get in the way of my internet surfing or my enjoyment of Red vs. Blue. And if it did, my computer has a neat little feature. It's called "multitasking."
If you've got a media PC already hooked up, great for you.
What is this "media PC"? Even a normal PC does every single thing on your list, and some of those things (web browsing, running Linux, wireless networking) are the sorts of things a PC inherently does. Oh, and my DVD player upconverts to whatever screen resolution I happen to be running at the time. It even downconverts, if I really want to run in 640 by 480.
I am just saying that a $500 price tag is a competitive one for the device feature set. Quite frankly, it's a better value than the XBox 360.
Yeah, maybe if you don't have a computer already. Duplicating features that your existing devices already do much better does not make a "better value". That's like saying PS3 is a better value if it includes a refrigerated compartment for beer, even if it only holds two cans and requires that I switch out of playing my game to "eject can" mode in order to get one. That's an incredibly stupid argument when most people already own refrigerators.
Cross platform (Win/Mac/Linux) streaming media player (H.264, MPEG2,Many AVI-contained formats)
Local media player (variety of flash memory cards and external hard drives)
Can browse the internet w/ flash support
Plays a variety of farily good online content, with feature titles including Calling All Cars and the recent Super Stardust HD.
Uses standard bluetooth and USB for all peripherals. You can use your existing bluetooth headset.
It can run linux. It cannot access the video hardware, but thats boring anyways. The Cell processor is far more exciting.
802.11b/g right out of the box. No external adaptor required.
With the exception of the Cell processor and a different selection of "fairly good online content", I already own something that does all of these things. And unless you're also using your PS3 to post on Slashdot, so do you.
Because I make less now, than I did back in 1999-2000 & beforehand, per year (I live in the 12th worst city economically
Wow. You miss obvious explanations for your personal problems and instead turn around to blame them on the political situation, which you rant about, pretty much without rhyme or reason, even though it has little to do with whatever point you're supposed to be making.
Bullshit. The first tide is caused by the water being pulled away from the earth by the moon. The second tide is caused by the earth being pulled away from the water by the moon.
No it doesn't. The set of positive integers is separate from the set of negative integers, and both are infinite.
Different sense of "infinite". There's also an infinite number of numbers between 0 and 1. And actually, Spinoza would have known about this--after all, infinite divisibility dates back to Zeno of Elea and his infamous paradoxes.
Slashdot Mirror
So she was seventeen and a half? Incredible. Seventeen and a half year old girls having sex. How stomach churning.
Wow, you had the most unethical friend ever.
In the end, you also die, which means all your self-improvement was for naught.
Well, good for Gwyneth Paltrow. Is she a good enough actress to convince me she's in the freezing cold if she's being filmed in a climate-controlled studio in L.A.?
That would be Dr. Issac Asimov. Also, according to the usual source, "It is a mark of the friendship and respect accorded Asimov by Arthur C. Clarke that the so-called "Asimov-Clarke Treaty of Park Avenue", put together as they shared a cab ride along Park Avenue in New York, stated that Asimov was required to insist that Clarke was the best science fiction writer in the world (reserving second best for himself), while Clarke was required to insist that Asimov was the best science writer in the world (reserving second best for himself)."
Back in the day, I only had one roll of film at once, and it took weeks to finish a roll. When I had a roll developed, it would have every single picture I'd taken for a month--so if this guy was anything like me, he had a lot of hardcore sex the same month his kid had a birthday party. That's not too strange, even though it might look like it when you develop the roll.
You know, in many states, the age of consent is 16. What this means is that it's legal to have a 16 year old girlfriend, legal to see her naked body in person, legal to touch her naked body, even to have sex with her--but taking pictures makes you a felon. This is an absurd little blind spot in the law, but never in my life did I think people so bought into the letter of the law for their "stomach" to be "churned" by people violating such absurd laws. The law can be wrong--and when it is wrong, my stomach is churned by people like you who can't get past a bad law.
That's general and broad enough to contradict itself. Good job!
Although, with half the price and the ability to play games by waving the controller around, it's a slightly cheaper, much more enjoyable raw deal.
Do you go sit on your couch to browse websites? Or, alternatively, do you find a $500 game console more economical than a DVI cable you can hook your notebook to when you come home?
Most people already have PC's. Poorly replicating the existing features of existing PC's is thus not a very good way of adding value to a gaming console.
I wasn't aware we disagreed over the MSRP of the PlayStation 3. As I recall, it's around $500, which is hundreds more than the Wii or Xbox 360. Our disagreement is over whether or not it's worth that for consumers in the console market.
I'm saying that, if I already own a car, it makes no sense to buy a second car because "you can drive it places." If I already own a tomato, "you can eat it" is not a compelling reason to buy an ear of corn. And, more to the point, if I already own a computer and I'm going console shopping, I'm not going to buy a more expensive console because it poorly does the same things my computer already does. Neither are, according to the sales reports, the thousands of people every month who choose to buy Wiis and PS2's instead of PS3's.
I'm criticizing an argument that you made--if you don't wish your arguments to be criticized, it would behoove you not to make them in a public forum. My point remains the same--the "feature list" you give for the PlayStation 3 is already redundant with the other devices that most people already own--especially if they're in the market for "luxury products".
If I only wanted to play PS2 and PS3 games, the PS3 would be worth like $200-$300 to me. $350 if I was rich. The extra "entertainment hub" features you mention provide no value to me because I already have those features, so it's a fallacy to factor them into the value of the PS3 to me, or anyone else with a recently-made computer.
Right, if it runs Linux (which means I have to buy it from...well...some unnamed vendor that you assert "does exist", or install it myself, neither of which the typical user is going to do). Having tried Ubuntu, I'd pick it over Windows, but not much else. Keep in mind that I was working within your $600 computer budget--my actual computer costs more than $600, but it's a bit faster, has a built-in screen, supports dual displays, has FireWire.... Oh, yes, and like most people who would buy a PS3, I already have my computer, so saying I can use my PS3 as a computer if I try really hard still gives me no additional value.
PC gaming might be better on certain technical levels (since PC's get graphics technology quicker, and get deeper games like Civilization), but console gaming is a whole different banana, and enjoying that banana for what it is is a good reason to get a console. (Of course, I vividly remember the era where "computer game" and "video game" were totally separate concepts.) I said PS3 was decent because, frankly, it's just an HD-resolution, overpowered version of what we had since the 90's, with a crippled PC and a lame Second LIfe ripoff bolted on, and "damn good" is a judgment I prefer to reserve for revolutionary changes like the Wii.
Just because you found a couple of idiots willing to mod you up doesn't mean you made a coherent point. You're complaining about being poor, but you bought a sports car? You're complaining about not being well-paid due to living in a poor city, but you're not clever enough to move? And then, after having already given me two obvious examples of ways you could have made things better for yourself (not wasted money on a sports car, and moved to a less impoverished city), you expect the government to help you out? What, do you want the Republicans to buy you a fucking helicopter, or all the high-octane gasoline you want?
Although, before trying to do any of that, you should work a little on your English. No self-respecting employer would hire anyone whose cover letter or resume was as poorly written and utterly unfocused as your comments.
By "eject can" I don't mean it would actually throw the can at you. You would still have to get up and walk to the PS3 to get the can. And then after two beers, you have to reload the PS3 from your fridge again.
Yeah, and someone might really want to do their taxes on the front panel of their refrigerator.
Except a great video card ends up costing more than most consoles, and a PC makes a less predictable platform, so there are good reasons for consoles. It works like this--consoles are better at playing video games, PC's are better at being PC's. Except the PS3, which makes a shitty PC, a decent game console if HD is the only differentiating feature for you, and a surprisingly good scientific computation node.
I have a mobile entertainment hub. And when I hook up my external 250 GB hard drive, speakers, and external screen, I have an even better entertainment hub.
For $600, I can get a computer that can run office suites, stand-alone IM, email, and calendar apps, my choice of browsers, IRC, alarm clocks, VLC, the IDE and compiler of my choosing, upscales DVDs to arbitrary resolution, will hook up to an HDTV (or any other display), stores and displays video and audio content, and can download said content over the internet, free or paid, legally or illegally, serves as a sync hub for my iPod and cell phone, downloads pictures from my digital camera, downloads and edits video from a DV camera, does my taxes, budgets my personal expenses, edits audio, runs Google Earth, multitasks between each and every one of these functions at the same time, and will run my choice of at least three operating systems, either in a multiboot or VM configuration. Will the PS3 do all of these out of the box?
I took out the bits about the Sony online store, and just left in the item about "online content". Technically, that includes the wide world of BitTorrent, and I did concede a "different selection".
I'm actually rather ashamed to admit this, but my computer doesn't actually run make often enough to get in the way of my internet surfing or my enjoyment of Red vs. Blue. And if it did, my computer has a neat little feature. It's called "multitasking."
What is this "media PC"? Even a normal PC does every single thing on your list, and some of those things (web browsing, running Linux, wireless networking) are the sorts of things a PC inherently does. Oh, and my DVD player upconverts to whatever screen resolution I happen to be running at the time. It even downconverts, if I really want to run in 640 by 480.
Yeah, maybe if you don't have a computer already. Duplicating features that your existing devices already do much better does not make a "better value". That's like saying PS3 is a better value if it includes a refrigerated compartment for beer, even if it only holds two cans and requires that I switch out of playing my game to "eject can" mode in order to get one. That's an incredibly stupid argument when most people already own refrigerators.
With the exception of the Cell processor and a different selection of "fairly good online content", I already own something that does all of these things. And unless you're also using your PS3 to post on Slashdot, so do you.
Be sure to save some bong hits for Jesus.
Wow. You miss obvious explanations for your personal problems and instead turn around to blame them on the political situation, which you rant about, pretty much without rhyme or reason, even though it has little to do with whatever point you're supposed to be making.
Hell, even legal protection from legitimate lawsuits. There are reasons people incorporate, register ships, etc. in foreign countries.
Bullshit. The first tide is caused by the water being pulled away from the earth by the moon. The second tide is caused by the earth being pulled away from the water by the moon.
Different sense of "infinite". There's also an infinite number of numbers between 0 and 1. And actually, Spinoza would have known about this--after all, infinite divisibility dates back to Zeno of Elea and his infamous paradoxes.
I guess we shouldn't harness the angular momentum of the earth then either. Dammit, now what do we do? Attach a gigantic crank to the Moon?
Inertia is not a force. It's a property of matter.