You mean Sony will reduce the price of a consumable product?
Who'd've thought it? I mean, I imagined the price of the PS3 staying the same forever. Oh yes.
Hello, Zonk, how's you doin', you XBox fanboy you.
Here's the real news: PS3 has sold out. It will continue to sell out. Myself and bunch of likeminded European will lap it up.
The only halfdecent 360 RPG sold less copies than the most recent Dreamcast title. LOL. The Japanese continue to eat up the PS3; the Europeans will quickly do so.
And then the world won't give two hoots what happens in the US - let M$oft have it.
If you say so, fanboy.
On the other hand, Sony have a better console. They have more studios developing for them. Heavenly Sword, MGS4 et al aren't even out yet. More studios are producing Bluray content than HDDVD.
You're not Zonk, are you?
Is that Nintendo sold [b]all[/b] their Wiis. Sony sold [b]all[/b] their PS3s. Microsoft didn't sell all their XBox360s.
Go on, Zonk. Say it. Say it! Microsoft... are... losing... the... nextgen... battle... ALREADY.
I disagree: simply because Sony are using Cell indicates, to me at least, that they are in front of the technology curve. Games consoles have long needed 'oriented-technology' hardware, be it 2D/3D acceleration, sound and music enhancements, etc. PS3 has Cell, whose multi-core vector processing enhancements are perfectly suited to gaming - far moreso than the generic PPC.
I've been wrong before, but it is obvious to me at least that despite the nay-sayers, the PS3 is firmly a games console and will do for Blu-Ray what PS2 did for DVD - bring the medium into the home.
Perhaps... just perhaps... people won't want to run Orifice? I can think of a zillion (alright, perhaps not, but certainly more than a few) applications just fine for Home/Office use that aren't from The Borg. I should know, because I use quite a few of them.
Hi! I'm Microsoft! I know people are starting to go a little mad about the imminent arrival of the PS3 therefore the Marketing Dept. require you to know that we'll have some simply awesome hardware in the future! So don't be PS3! No! Wait for the Real Emotion Chip (TM)!
Sorry mate, re: Exocet, you're wrong. France was s'posed to have stopped selling Exocets and accompanying technology to Argentina well before the Falklands conflict. Evidence surfaced at the end of the '90s to show that Exocets and launchers had been delivered to Argentina even during the outbreak of hosilities.
It is widely known the French were supplying Exocet to the Argies even at the very beginning of the combat; and that they delayed supplying certain data until the end of combat.
Six weeks is not a very long war. There was only one decisive battle, since that's all it took (Goose Green).
The only significant 'help' was that from the US whom allowed the British fleet to restock in Florida.
And of course the Argies faught gallantly - right up until they gave in.
Thass bollox. The 'war' (read 'skirmish') was a lot shorter than most people thought it'd be, thanks to the usual outstanding UK military expertise; low-level (*proper* low-level) VTOL sorties laid waste to most Argie installations.
So, of course it was extremely one-sided. There was no 'eventually' about it - the Brits won in very short order, regardless of the occasional Exocet excitement.
Those planes don't perform "low-level" raids since they're specifically prohibited from such by the USAF - whom, incidentally, are on record asking for the RAF to perform such low-level flying on their behalf. Runway attack runs, etc.
The only USAF aircraft that one could factually describe as performing the 'low level attack function' in Iraq would be Apache etc. But I'm not talking about helicopters.
Incidentally, it wasn't the Argentinian aircraft which were 'successful' against the British in the Falklands - it was their French Exocet missiles. And 'successful' is moot. The Brits kicked the Argies out of the Falklands. Game over.
So why do the Murricans always ask the British to conduct low-level flying raids (e.g. Iraq). Is it:
a) Because the Argentines aren't available b) Tom Cruise is on holiday c) Because, in reality, British pilots are the best trained and more than capable of flying at 100ft
Actually, it is.
I don't have to carry ID with me.
(Yet. But, at least at this moment in time, I don't. And I'll emigrate if/when I have to. You listening, MI6?)
What you say is reasonable and full of common sense. However, common sense is our enemy here. We are talking about the fabric of society and individuals' human rights.
Some believe you *can* compromise between liberty and security, just as much as those that inhabit either philosophical extreme. Personally I'm pretty scared - not by the terrorists, but by the activities of the State to leverage the fear and ignorance of the public to further their own agenda...
It is hard to draw comparisons, too (you comment to the parent - in bold):
What you're doing is assuming he is guilty before proving otherwise. He, as an innocent person, has the right to freedom until someone can find something in that disc that justifies taking it from him, not the other way around.
People being held without bail between their arraignment and their trial will be happy to hear this.
Actually, these people will have been charged and will have immediate access to a solicitor or some representative. The Act as put forward by our glorious leaders ensures that an individual will neither be informed of the charge nor have access to legal representation.
The current system works, if applied properly. There are already laws against carrying explosives, intend to wound/kill etc. There is no need to have specific 'terror' legislation.
Guy Ffawkes is laughing at us at this very moment.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean Sony will reduce the price of a consumable product?
Who'd've thought it? I mean, I imagined the price of the PS3 staying the same forever. Oh yes.
Hello, Zonk, how's you doin', you XBox fanboy you.
Here's the real news: PS3 has sold out. It will continue to sell out. Myself and bunch of likeminded European will lap it up.
The only halfdecent 360 RPG sold less copies than the most recent Dreamcast title. LOL. The Japanese continue to eat up the PS3; the Europeans will quickly do so.
And then the world won't give two hoots what happens in the US - let M$oft have it.
Looks like a troll, smells like a troll, tastes like a troll, feels like a troll.
.
Yep, it's a troll. Rrrrrrrrrrrrrraaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
-- From under a bridge.
More Zonk fanboy flamebait
If you say so, fanboy. On the other hand, Sony have a better console. They have more studios developing for them. Heavenly Sword, MGS4 et al aren't even out yet. More studios are producing Bluray content than HDDVD. You're not Zonk, are you?
Is that Nintendo sold [b]all[/b] their Wiis. Sony sold [b]all[/b] their PS3s. Microsoft didn't sell all their XBox360s. Go on, Zonk. Say it. Say it! Microsoft ... are ... losing ... the ... nextgen ... battle ... ALREADY.
Course. Quake 4, Doom3 and Unreal Tournament 2004 too.
I disagree: simply because Sony are using Cell indicates, to me at least, that they are in front of the technology curve. Games consoles have long needed 'oriented-technology' hardware, be it 2D/3D acceleration, sound and music enhancements, etc. PS3 has Cell, whose multi-core vector processing enhancements are perfectly suited to gaming - far moreso than the generic PPC.
I've been wrong before, but it is obvious to me at least that despite the nay-sayers, the PS3 is firmly a games console and will do for Blu-Ray what PS2 did for DVD - bring the medium into the home.
That's a strawman; a PS3 is more than a graphics card.
I need a wee :)
Uh-oh. A bible-bashing XBox fanboy.
You from th'deep south, boy?
Perhaps ... just perhaps ... people won't want to run Orifice? I can think of a zillion (alright, perhaps not, but certainly more than a few) applications just fine for Home/Office use that aren't from The Borg. I should know, because I use quite a few of them.
Hi! I'm Microsoft! I know people are starting to go a little mad about the imminent arrival of the PS3 therefore the Marketing Dept. require you to know that we'll have some simply awesome hardware in the future! So don't be PS3! No! Wait for the Real Emotion Chip (TM)!
(This has been a public service broadcast.)
So, it'll do Heavenly Sword, Resistance or GTHD, too, eh?; I may as well roll out my old Dreamcast with Banjo on it. Sigh. Next, 360 fanboy.
Spectacular Breaking News! Zonk becomes PS3 fanboy!
/.?
Just joking.
Hey, Zonk: when PS3 crushes 360, with or without Gran Turismo, d'you think you'll still be hanging around
Sorry mate, re: Exocet, you're wrong. France was s'posed to have stopped selling Exocets and accompanying technology to Argentina well before the Falklands conflict. Evidence surfaced at the end of the '90s to show that Exocets and launchers had been delivered to Argentina even during the outbreak of hosilities.
You're wrong.
It is widely known the French were supplying Exocet to the Argies even at the very beginning of the combat; and that they delayed supplying certain data until the end of combat.
Six weeks is not a very long war. There was only one decisive battle, since that's all it took (Goose Green).
The only significant 'help' was that from the US whom allowed the British fleet to restock in Florida.
And of course the Argies faught gallantly - right up until they gave in.
Twonk.
Low-level attack is regarded as 200ft. The only attack aircraft crews that routinely fly that low are RAF.
Did I say Twonk? What I meant was, um, twonk.
Twonk.
I'd call 100ft, at which the RAF fly, low-level. Not a pussy 350ft.
A-10 minimum effective strike altitude: 350ft. Ref: Jane's.
Thass bollox. The 'war' (read 'skirmish') was a lot shorter than most people thought it'd be, thanks to the usual outstanding UK military expertise; low-level (*proper* low-level) VTOL sorties laid waste to most Argie installations.
So, of course it was extremely one-sided. There was no 'eventually' about it - the Brits won in very short order, regardless of the occasional Exocet excitement.
Mug.
Those planes don't perform "low-level" raids since they're specifically prohibited from such by the USAF - whom, incidentally, are on record asking for the RAF to perform such low-level flying on their behalf. Runway attack runs, etc.
The only USAF aircraft that one could factually describe as performing the 'low level attack function' in Iraq would be Apache etc. But I'm not talking about helicopters.
Incidentally, it wasn't the Argentinian aircraft which were 'successful' against the British in the Falklands - it was their French Exocet missiles. And 'successful' is moot. The Brits kicked the Argies out of the Falklands. Game over.
Twat.
...
So why do the Murricans always ask the British to conduct low-level flying raids (e.g. Iraq). Is it:
a) Because the Argentines aren't available
b) Tom Cruise is on holiday
c) Because, in reality, British pilots are the best trained and more than capable of flying at 100ft
Answers on a postcard to
Actually, it is. I don't have to carry ID with me. (Yet. But, at least at this moment in time, I don't. And I'll emigrate if/when I have to. You listening, MI6?)
Like, wotevah. One of the '05's most successful films - Arry Potter an' the Fierce Cup Of Hot Stuff - will be released in HD on Blu-Ray.
Some believe you *can* compromise between liberty and security, just as much as those that inhabit either philosophical extreme. Personally I'm pretty scared - not by the terrorists, but by the activities of the State to leverage the fear and ignorance of the public to further their own agenda ...
It is hard to draw comparisons, too (you comment to the parent - in bold):
What you're doing is assuming he is guilty before proving otherwise. He, as an innocent person, has the right to freedom until someone can find something in that disc that justifies taking it from him, not the other way around.
People being held without bail between their arraignment and their trial will be happy to hear this.
Actually, these people will have been charged and will have immediate access to a solicitor or some representative. The Act as put forward by our glorious leaders ensures that an individual will neither be informed of the charge nor have access to legal representation.
The current system works, if applied properly. There are already laws against carrying explosives, intend to wound/kill etc. There is no need to have specific 'terror' legislation.
Guy Ffawkes is laughing at us at this very moment.