I've purchased one, had it for 7 months and sold it.
Played Super Mario Galaxy and Zelda, the system simply did not compete (in my eyes) with the 360 and PS3 it shared a TV cabinet with.
You played just two games on a system before giving up on it?? I also don't see it competing directly with the other systems any more than the Wii competes with the games on my iPhone. The 360 and PS3 have better graphics, Wii has better input. They're not mutually exclusive.
the motion sense on the wiimote is not that hot, it's pretty notchy and sometimes I miss things in Wii sports tennis because I'm setting up for a shot (I like to actually move my arms) and the wiimote decides I've made a swing when I'm clearly making a setup.
Indeed. I've lost count of how many times I'm winding up for a forehand and Wii tennis decides I just tried a backhand.
I know "pro" Wii players will advise to stop making full body movements and just use wrist cheats, but I play Wii tennis because I love the game of tennis, not because I want to get a high score at a video game. I have very high hopes for the MotionPlus to bring the real game indoors when it's snowing or raining outside & I can't hit the real court.
I would like them to rerelease the golf and bowling with support, so it actually works.
I agree. Just tried bowling again last night after a few months away led to me forgetting how inconsistent its input is. What a frustrating experience it can be.
I do expect them to update the rest of the Wii Sports to support the MotionPlus. But I'm also glad that tennis, even if it's from a 3rd party, will be the first supported sport since it's the one Wii Sports game I play by far the most.
Overtaxed? Are you kidding me? If anything, Americans are extremely UNDER taxed.
Have you looked at your deficit recently? Have you ever compared your personal income tax rates to any other country's other than tax heavens? I didn't think so.
That's like saying John Doe is a nicer guy than Joe Sixpack because Joe beats his wife three times a week and John only beats his wife twice a week.
If he had only compared U.S. taxes to other countries' you would be correct. However, he didn't--he also asked you to look at the deficit. Therefore your analogy fails. We do in fact need higher taxes in order to pay off the monstrous debt we're accumulating. Only anti-Americans would still be wanting lower taxes given the huge crisis we're facing.
I doubt there's a judge in the land who would rule that statutory damages of 2100 times the actual damages is constitutional.
I can name 5: Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Kennedy, and Souter.
(yeah, I'm a pessimist)
You'd have to be. The first four we (and most) can agree on, but I'd be surprised if Souter would side with the RIAA and DOJ on this one. While appointed by GHWB, he has tended towards the liberal side in most decisions. He's rather "common sense", using the Constitution as a general guideline not a strict rule--he'd likely side with the little guy in this case.
It seems that these days, if you speak ill against Obama (the chosen one), you will be smitten down and piled up upon by anyone that was a fervent disciple during the election or of a democratic leaning.
Source? Proof? Or are you making a straw-man argument? I voted for Obama and am incensed about this story. No defense of the administration is warranted or being proffered. If anything, those of us who supported him are MORE angry than you because we feel betrayal that you as an opponent cannot feel. And yet you use this situation as a chance to attack the other side for something they are not doing. How about you attack Obama for something he is doing??
Amen. (Whoever modded this offtopic needs to learn that it is never offtopic to use proper grammar and punctuation. Without them, no idea can be properly conveyed, and there is no longer a topic.)
Hardly. The entire point of the original post was to list things that COULD happen so that readers might be enlightened and gain a bit of empathy and insight. If you list something that would never happen, the entire intended point is blown. That's exactly what happened and that's why he's right, it's a fail.
The difference it makes is that if you've never had kids then you can only reliably argue half the facts, meaning your argument is flawed from the get-go.
Ah, spoken like someone who has never experienced that thing called "empathy". If you've never had it you can't imagine others could possibly have it and therefore you can't fathom that those without kids might actually be able to have a concept of what might or might not be good for kids.
Funny thing though...I have no kids but I'm the one who has never beaten a child, unlike millions of parents out there. Interesting how that fact tosses your claim on its head.
The idea behind outlawing obscenity is fairly understandable: we don't want to see things that can hurt us.
Hardly. If that were the case, you'd just turn the TV or radio to a different channel. Problem solved--you're no longer seeing something that might hurt you. But no, you have to go make laws and impose your beliefs on others. And that's where you start removing freedoms from others and we start opposing you.
Are you saying that you're the go-to guy on what's obscene?
No, but you seem to be saying that you are. Your posts repeatedly imply that obscenity is an absolute--that there is a basic definition (you even referred us to Wikipedia, as if that's an agreed-upon resource.)
Meanwhile, for many of us "obscenity" is a code word for "I want to impose my morality on others", for people out to do that are far & away the most likely to use the term. And you, like they do, imply that there can be an agreed-upon definition. But somehow the "obscenity line" is always a moving target. If the "stop obscenity" people get their way with one law, they turn around and want to move it again to include more censorship. If the anti-obscenity law folks defeat the latest censorship bill, the stop-obscenity people find something else they want to ban, again moving the line. That's because they aren't really out to protect people but to control them.
Why is it that when some one finally tells us that we must do things the smart way instead of the wasteful way, we start screaming at them?
THANK YOU. It's nice to read a sensible response among all the "That goldarned Government is controlling us again! Stop the Communists!" kneejerk reactions. Hating on the government has become a full-time religion in this country.
Why ban either? Maybe it's just me, but I don't think the question should be what the right thing to ban is with the presumption that "We gotta ban something!" There are better solutions...
And they've tried them. When CA mandated better fuel economy the Federal Government (read: Bush Administration) took them to court claiming that only they could dictate fuel standards. And the Feds won. (Ever notice how when the Feds don't have the money to pay for something they're in favor of states' rights but as soon as the states do something the lobbyists in DC don't like the Feds hate states' rights?) My point is that CA has been trying to do other things, and this is but the latest in a long string of attempts. Please don't disingenuously try to claim this is their only effort towards energy savings.
So then are you going to be taxed for not washing your car?
Irrelevant, as dirt is not black. Sure it looks black on a white car but ever notice how it looks white on a black car? Dirt is all colors of the spectrum and as such is not the UV-absorbing solid black that is being legislated against.
The problem, according to the article, is that the paint makers haven't been able to make "black" paint that meets those requirements.
And it sure is funny that when such laws are considered and/or enacted how a year or so later the industry magically manages to devise a solution. So for all the "controlling our lives" whining going on in this forum, CA has been a leader in forcing the industry to do things it should have done on its own but the "free market" failed to deliver. And this is why Socialism is not the evil everyone says it is...it can be a force for good, but nobody ever bothers mentioning that.
Your trolling post assumes that there is no stupid legislation in any other state. At least CA's intent is good, even if the science isn't necessarily there to back it up. People do not have to have black cars--they will suffer no major loss of income or lifestyle to get another color. Other states take away basic human rights like being able to marry whomever one chooses or being able to abort a genetically-defective fetus. Those are the stupid states. I'd much rather live in CA with a non-black car than have states invade my body or my love life.
He's dealing with one of the worst economies in decades.
Brought on by the very people he hired to "solve" it.
Oh, give it up. Wall St. collapsed in September. The people Obama hired were not in charge of things then. Stop helping Limbaugh and Hannity rewrite recent history.
I need something better than 1440x900. Heck, my old (circa-1991) Latitude did 1680x1050
Sorry, no, it really really didn't. It's pretty easy to forget how antiquated laptops were in 1991.
Laptops then didn't even do 1024x768, which was still extravagant on desktops in 1991. You had that resolution by 2001 maybe, (though I doubt it), but definitely not 1991.
Why can't people just prefer apple, and not be fanatical about it?
We can. Why can't you accept that only a small % of Apple users are fanbois? Oh, right, because then you wouldn't be able to cling to your bigotry anymore.
If the facts are not relevant to a person's daily life or that person's career, who cares if they know the quantitative answer to a question? Let that person concentrate on information that can actually improve their lot in life, and stop quizzing them on trivia.
Except they ARE relevant to a person's daily life. Global warming affects each and every one of us daily and will continue to do so to a greater and greater degree. Knowing fundamental facts about our planet helps people understand the concept and therefore helps them vote properly for candidates best qualified to work towards solving the problem. It is unquestionable that a voter who does not know 70% of the planet is water is less qualified to help fix the planet than one who does know that. "Trivia" this is not, so please do not compare it to knowing who won the Oscar for best director in 1953.
Just a note: Knowing how much of the planet is covered in water is *not* scientific literacy. That is trivia knowledge.
Incorrect. "Trivia", by definition, is useless information, such as who won American Idol last season. Knowing that 70% of the earth is covered with water is essential information for realizing that overpopulation is an issue, for knowing how crucial water currents are with relation to global warming and weather phenomena, and for geographical and political-boundary wisdom. It's nearly as essential as knowing the shape of the planet or where the meridians and parallels are--the lack of this info is, in certain ways, crippling.
Slashdot Mirror
I've purchased one, had it for 7 months and sold it. Played Super Mario Galaxy and Zelda, the system simply did not compete (in my eyes) with the 360 and PS3 it shared a TV cabinet with.
You played just two games on a system before giving up on it?? I also don't see it competing directly with the other systems any more than the Wii competes with the games on my iPhone. The 360 and PS3 have better graphics, Wii has better input. They're not mutually exclusive.
the motion sense on the wiimote is not that hot, it's pretty notchy and sometimes I miss things in Wii sports tennis because I'm setting up for a shot (I like to actually move my arms) and the wiimote decides I've made a swing when I'm clearly making a setup.
Indeed. I've lost count of how many times I'm winding up for a forehand and Wii tennis decides I just tried a backhand.
I know "pro" Wii players will advise to stop making full body movements and just use wrist cheats, but I play Wii tennis because I love the game of tennis, not because I want to get a high score at a video game. I have very high hopes for the MotionPlus to bring the real game indoors when it's snowing or raining outside & I can't hit the real court.
I would like them to rerelease the golf and bowling with support, so it actually works.
I agree. Just tried bowling again last night after a few months away led to me forgetting how inconsistent its input is. What a frustrating experience it can be.
I do expect them to update the rest of the Wii Sports to support the MotionPlus. But I'm also glad that tennis, even if it's from a 3rd party, will be the first supported sport since it's the one Wii Sports game I play by far the most.
Overtaxed? Are you kidding me? If anything, Americans are extremely UNDER taxed. Have you looked at your deficit recently? Have you ever compared your personal income tax rates to any other country's other than tax heavens? I didn't think so.
That's like saying John Doe is a nicer guy than Joe Sixpack because Joe beats his wife three times a week and John only beats his wife twice a week.
If he had only compared U.S. taxes to other countries' you would be correct. However, he didn't--he also asked you to look at the deficit. Therefore your analogy fails. We do in fact need higher taxes in order to pay off the monstrous debt we're accumulating. Only anti-Americans would still be wanting lower taxes given the huge crisis we're facing.
Seriously? If true, your story is begging for more details. And, if possible without getting you abducted by the Mossad, names.
Well done!
I can name 5: Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Kennedy, and Souter. (yeah, I'm a pessimist)
You'd have to be. The first four we (and most) can agree on, but I'd be surprised if Souter would side with the RIAA and DOJ on this one. While appointed by GHWB, he has tended towards the liberal side in most decisions. He's rather "common sense", using the Constitution as a general guideline not a strict rule--he'd likely side with the little guy in this case.
It seems that these days, if you speak ill against Obama (the chosen one), you will be smitten down and piled up upon by anyone that was a fervent disciple during the election or of a democratic leaning.
Source? Proof? Or are you making a straw-man argument? I voted for Obama and am incensed about this story. No defense of the administration is warranted or being proffered. If anything, those of us who supported him are MORE angry than you because we feel betrayal that you as an opponent cannot feel. And yet you use this situation as a chance to attack the other side for something they are not doing. How about you attack Obama for something he is doing??
Amen. (Whoever modded this offtopic needs to learn that it is never offtopic to use proper grammar and punctuation. Without them, no idea can be properly conveyed, and there is no longer a topic.)
Thank you for proving the point.
Hardly. The entire point of the original post was to list things that COULD happen so that readers might be enlightened and gain a bit of empathy and insight. If you list something that would never happen, the entire intended point is blown. That's exactly what happened and that's why he's right, it's a fail.
Your perception may change, but the facts remain the same.
Perception is all there is.
To you. But your perception changes nothing about the facts, except to you. Thus your statement is not only self-serving but mostly wrong.
The difference it makes is that if you've never had kids then you can only reliably argue half the facts, meaning your argument is flawed from the get-go.
Ah, spoken like someone who has never experienced that thing called "empathy". If you've never had it you can't imagine others could possibly have it and therefore you can't fathom that those without kids might actually be able to have a concept of what might or might not be good for kids.
Funny thing though...I have no kids but I'm the one who has never beaten a child, unlike millions of parents out there. Interesting how that fact tosses your claim on its head.
The idea behind outlawing obscenity is fairly understandable: we don't want to see things that can hurt us.
Hardly. If that were the case, you'd just turn the TV or radio to a different channel. Problem solved--you're no longer seeing something that might hurt you. But no, you have to go make laws and impose your beliefs on others. And that's where you start removing freedoms from others and we start opposing you.
Are you saying that you're the go-to guy on what's obscene?
No, but you seem to be saying that you are. Your posts repeatedly imply that obscenity is an absolute--that there is a basic definition (you even referred us to Wikipedia, as if that's an agreed-upon resource.)
Meanwhile, for many of us "obscenity" is a code word for "I want to impose my morality on others", for people out to do that are far & away the most likely to use the term. And you, like they do, imply that there can be an agreed-upon definition. But somehow the "obscenity line" is always a moving target. If the "stop obscenity" people get their way with one law, they turn around and want to move it again to include more censorship. If the anti-obscenity law folks defeat the latest censorship bill, the stop-obscenity people find something else they want to ban, again moving the line. That's because they aren't really out to protect people but to control them.
Why is it that when some one finally tells us that we must do things the smart way instead of the wasteful way, we start screaming at them?
THANK YOU. It's nice to read a sensible response among all the "That goldarned Government is controlling us again! Stop the Communists!" kneejerk reactions. Hating on the government has become a full-time religion in this country.
Why ban either? Maybe it's just me, but I don't think the question should be what the right thing to ban is with the presumption that "We gotta ban something!" There are better solutions...
And they've tried them. When CA mandated better fuel economy the Federal Government (read: Bush Administration) took them to court claiming that only they could dictate fuel standards. And the Feds won. (Ever notice how when the Feds don't have the money to pay for something they're in favor of states' rights but as soon as the states do something the lobbyists in DC don't like the Feds hate states' rights?) My point is that CA has been trying to do other things, and this is but the latest in a long string of attempts. Please don't disingenuously try to claim this is their only effort towards energy savings.
So then are you going to be taxed for not washing your car?
Irrelevant, as dirt is not black. Sure it looks black on a white car but ever notice how it looks white on a black car? Dirt is all colors of the spectrum and as such is not the UV-absorbing solid black that is being legislated against.
The problem, according to the article, is that the paint makers haven't been able to make "black" paint that meets those requirements.
And it sure is funny that when such laws are considered and/or enacted how a year or so later the industry magically manages to devise a solution. So for all the "controlling our lives" whining going on in this forum, CA has been a leader in forcing the industry to do things it should have done on its own but the "free market" failed to deliver. And this is why Socialism is not the evil everyone says it is...it can be a force for good, but nobody ever bothers mentioning that.
Is California where all the stupid people go?
Your trolling post assumes that there is no stupid legislation in any other state. At least CA's intent is good, even if the science isn't necessarily there to back it up. People do not have to have black cars--they will suffer no major loss of income or lifestyle to get another color. Other states take away basic human rights like being able to marry whomever one chooses or being able to abort a genetically-defective fetus. Those are the stupid states. I'd much rather live in CA with a non-black car than have states invade my body or my love life.
RIAA are not media. They are leeches on media. They are not by any means part of what everyone refers to as "MSM".
Brought on by the very people he hired to "solve" it.
Oh, give it up. Wall St. collapsed in September. The people Obama hired were not in charge of things then. Stop helping Limbaugh and Hannity rewrite recent history.
I need something better than 1440x900. Heck, my old (circa-1991) Latitude did 1680x1050
Sorry, no, it really really didn't. It's pretty easy to forget how antiquated laptops were in 1991.
Laptops then didn't even do 1024x768, which was still extravagant on desktops in 1991. You had that resolution by 2001 maybe, (though I doubt it), but definitely not 1991.
Why can't people just prefer apple, and not be fanatical about it?
We can. Why can't you accept that only a small % of Apple users are fanbois? Oh, right, because then you wouldn't be able to cling to your bigotry anymore.
If the facts are not relevant to a person's daily life or that person's career, who cares if they know the quantitative answer to a question? Let that person concentrate on information that can actually improve their lot in life, and stop quizzing them on trivia.
Except they ARE relevant to a person's daily life. Global warming affects each and every one of us daily and will continue to do so to a greater and greater degree. Knowing fundamental facts about our planet helps people understand the concept and therefore helps them vote properly for candidates best qualified to work towards solving the problem. It is unquestionable that a voter who does not know 70% of the planet is water is less qualified to help fix the planet than one who does know that. "Trivia" this is not, so please do not compare it to knowing who won the Oscar for best director in 1953.
Just a note: Knowing how much of the planet is covered in water is *not* scientific literacy. That is trivia knowledge.
Incorrect. "Trivia", by definition, is useless information, such as who won American Idol last season. Knowing that 70% of the earth is covered with water is essential information for realizing that overpopulation is an issue, for knowing how crucial water currents are with relation to global warming and weather phenomena, and for geographical and political-boundary wisdom. It's nearly as essential as knowing the shape of the planet or where the meridians and parallels are--the lack of this info is, in certain ways, crippling.