lawyers who abide these tactics are called "rambo" lawyers, and there is always two or three firms in every town that works this way. In fact, the next thing to do if you get divorced but want a fair deal and know your SO is going to be a jackass about it is to hire all the rambo attorneys, tell them your private info, and then drop them so they are barred from taking the case against you (since they have confidential information). The attorneys actually make a decent amount of money from these 'retainers'.
Another note, I don't know where you are, but in many places you can still be married without getting married if you domicile with someone for long enough. Common law marriage and all that.
best thing to do is try for a community property state and know your spouse well enough to know if there are real problems. Sadly, a lot of people get totally screwed.
Almost everything you've said is completely wrong. HD-DVD did not have better audio quality to blu-ray. Only blu-ray had uncompressed, perfect audio. This was a widely publicizes difference. I can't tell the difference between the aduio quality, but it would take a very uninformed person to claim that HD-DVD was the better.
I also don't know what you mean by HD-DVD usually having the better picture. This was a problem for several blu-rays for a very short time, then the quality of picture was exactly the same. Also, blu-rays cost about half as much to make.
The superior product won, man. The capacity of the disc is 90% of what matters in the digital age. It's not complicated.
You say you hate Sony like everyone else who is informed of the "industry". What industry are you talking about? Consumer electronics? What has Sony done that makes them hateable? They innovate like mad and fall on their faces half the time? That's something to love! You realize you are making a comparison when you use industry and informed. You're claiming that Sony is much worse than competitors. But you don't say how.
I worry that these days a lot of XBOX 360 fans want Sony to be the bad guy to justify their purchase of a console from Microsoft, whose biz practices cannot possibly be compared positively to Sony's.
It was HD-DVD that played dirtiest in this game. We all know the only verified studio bribe was by Microsoft to HD-DVD, not to win, but to screw up and delay blu-ray winning to minimize the market. So tell me, what are you talking about when you say your information on the industry forces you to hate Sony? Are you just some sort of crazy?
exactly. I never said the PS3 is perfect, but it is much more future proof than the PS2, which was somewhat more bargain oriented and didn't give too much thought to the future.
The Titanic was less sinkable than normal boats of the time, by the way, though you can never fully engineer around human stupidity. Can't compare the big Tit to many other boats of the day on that particular issue.
The entire comparison made between the PS2 and the PS3 is silly. And frankly, it's clear to me that the PS3 would be in far more homes had it more closely followed the PS2, but it didn't. They are both black and play PS1 games and use similar controllers. PS3s don't even use a similar architecture to the PS2, unlike Nintendo and MS's consoles, which are simply advancements of a consistent philosophy.
But this is not the normal physical world we're talking about.
When I'm looking for practically ANY utility on the internet. A file converter, an.mpd player, a game emulator, a audio mixer... I always know I'm getting the best quality and least scammy thing if I find the most popular open source version.
I never google for such programs anymore without including an open source term of some kind.
Those who haven't figured this out yet, haven't figured the internet out yet.
MS is out to get more than the windows profit from you. Way more. Most of it most folks have no idea about. With Linux, they are mainly out to build market share, and it's easy to see fairly quickly.
You say we should choose the one that wears his motives on his sleeves, and I say that's the best argument to stay away from MS ever.
You're totally right about human nature and how the world is perceived, but man I wish people realized how the opposite is true.
I can't tell you how many times I used to allow broken loops to run, hoping and hoping and pleading that it would work. And sometimes it did.
Computers don't really have that clunky feel anymore, and we're leaving the "hot-rod" modder age that was kinda akin to 60's and 70s muscle cars. Laptops are more like the newer less modable cars, so the OS is the only opportunity I get to have these fun experiences!
Democracy isn't about facts. There are very few things we really know, and I would never trust the government to "know" anything. We have opinions. that are often wrong. About WMDs in Iraq, about Hoover-villes, about Don't Ask Don't Tell.
We all have our opinions.
Now, you do realize that the minority is the GOP, right? Their opinions about wars and pork spending really pissed off everybody, and now the dems are in power. I see a HELL OF A LOT of hatred and anger at Republicans. IF you don't you're probably stupid fucking idiot.
You speak of disinformation and lies, but you admit you don't know ANYTHING about Limbaugh. You are demonizing him as a propaganda lying monster, and you have no idea if that's true. Already you are far less honest and far more "hate mongering" than Rush will ever be.
I personally think folks who are that interesting in hearing what one person has to say have something wrong with them. I don't like Rush's program very much. But it's purely American freedom of speech in exactly the way that separates us from the rest of the world. It's one of the few noble American traits that is not fictitious. We live in a world of Al Franken and Rush Limbaugh and free will to listen to who you like, or better, listen to music.
too bad so many people are happy to condemn Rush for "disinformation" that almost certainly is minuscule in comparison to the misinformation you will find in any normal newspaper or even the New York Times.
Yeah, Rush had a problem with drugs. I don't really think that makes him much of a hypocrite. Maybe slightly. Addiction is a disease, and it's bad. If Rush condemns druggies all the time, and becomes a druggie after surgical pains then quits, I don't really think that's something to beat him over the head with.
It's a tragedy. It's helpful. It's a learning tool. I don't really listen to Rush except if I'm driving a very long distance, but I don't hear him condemn drugs anymore, and he probably never did it that much.
You claim he is wrong 100% of the time. That's very arrogant of you, because you are asserting you are right 100% of the time. You think Republican = bad, but I don't see why that's the case at all. Democrats routinely do virtually everything the Republicans do.
You want to talk about a blowhard, attack Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly. I think Rush is significantly more moderate in his temper and tone, though he's obviously no moderate politically.
You call me a pot, but I'm not mirroring your idiotic point of view in any way. I don't think Al Franken is wrong 100% of the time (I actually lean closer to Al than Rush, but that's beside the point). I'd never say something that stupid.
as much as I love the 360's game superiority, this is so true.
MS isn't fighting Sony tooth and nail just to do better, they are trying to dominate and monopolize the entire industry, and when they do, they will have far more draconian rules for getting as much money as possible out of me.
I don't want to see MS buy core IPs to the point where they can control who can complete with them, but MS is clearly trying to do this. I don't want to see subscriptions for everything and zero actual ownership, but that's exactly where we're headed if MS manages to dominate the game industry. Fortunately, I think Nintendo is unstoppable and Sony is showing a lot more strength this year.
but I worry that the excellence of the 360 is more like bait.
But the rest of the world is doing a terrific job getting this stuff to work precesily because you (no offense intended) are wrong.
There won't be cherry picking because even poorest neighborhoods are extremely profitable for cable companies. Deregulating would mean businesses would track consumer desire. Why invest in the infrastructure to support the wealthy only? Poor folks like internet, tv, phone, etc. Hell, the probably like it more!
My in-laws are extremely wealthy, and they use far fewer entertainment services than my family, who are pretty freaking poor.
think about it. Why are monopolies needed here and not there? Perhaps you are right with regards to rural lands, but even there I think you are wrong, and urban competition lead to better 3g style services that can help in a wider area.
Rush is definitely a hyperpartisan, but he's an opinion man. Most of what he says is just opinion. He's not comparable to Rwandan massacres, and he's probably more accurate than Air America, (I enjoy both, but Rush is a lot more chill, frankly).
Rush is following a high tradition: free speech. Yeah, I disagree with a lot of it, but I wish all hyperpolitical folks did their work with such a sense of humor about them. I certainly don't think he's dangerous. He's been attacked by censors who are linked to powerful political dynasties, and a lot of the "hate radio" label has come from them. They are your enemy, my friend. They wan tto shu Rush up so they gain some miniscule political advantage. Let Rush speak, and feel free to speak against him. That's what democracy looks like.
It's sad that liberals aren't all like me, and willing to let everybody give their best argument. I don't pretend anyone has all the answers, so no one out there can claim to always be right and Rush to always be wrong. Listen to him sometime, an be serious about it. He's full of goading and he's biassed as all hell, but he really isn't that angry.
No, it's not really a myth if it's true. You can't access your content unless you're logged in, and though this is only a sometimes occasional maybe restriction, it's less than what you paid for, and it's legitimate for customers to complain when they don't get what they paid for.
It is awful enough that 360s are the least reliable console ever (I'm kinda mad because mine failed recently). After that delay in getting a working system, it's kinda lame that we are then punished, even if only a little bit.
MS has its subscription theory it is moving towards, slowly but surely, and these little problems are symptoms of a great disease.
To some extent yeah you will see a better summer, but some shows are forgoing summer. Advertisers don't like summer advertising, so networks just have less reason to keep the audience.
24, namely, could probably show some stuff this summer, but has been pushed all to way to 2009.
Their theory also is that other professors and universities will follow Harvard's lead again. Laugh all you want, but so many aspects of the American education system originated at Harvard.
This is an obvious and important adjustment to the internet.
Go to SSRN and look at the law articles. A lot of very nice ones, the best ones published in a journal that allows a free copy to be distributed. I've seen first hand this trend. Journals will take notice and adjust.
I don't think that makes any sense. I will stop kids from smoking crack in my living room, but if I don't notice it, it's still their bad, not mine.
The only problem with this is that consumers don't really have any choice in internet providers. Comcast should be allowed to do whatever the hell it wants with its business, slowing down pink pictures and speeding up blue ones if it likes. So long as the customers know what they are getting and have a choice.
The whole problem is that there really is no market (which is also why these networks are so easily overwhelmed). It's time to dereg all local cable monopolies.
My Z60 also is not quite up to par for Thinkpads. It was not a Lenovo (bought just after the changeover), but I think the T60 and Z60 line just aren't the best Thinkpads.
I don't really think this has anything to do with Lenovo. The laptops are still being made by the same folks, really.
But really, they keep your information, and probably sell your information, even if they k-line your account.
They probably also don't cancel accounts for a lot of offensive pics.
Personally, I think you should never enter accurate information into these services. I never give them the right birthday.
I guess most will still use their name, but if everything else is inaccurate, big deal. And if all the info is inaccurate, there will be less incentive to harvest it.
Actually, it is extremely unlikely that whatever you're voting on will come to within 1 vote difference. Especially presidential elections with the electoral college, and most people living in a state like California, New York, or Texas.
Frankly, for most people, voting certainly is a waste of time. But in the one in a zillion chance that your vote will actually determine something other than the margin of victory and extremely subtle message that makes, your vote is worthwhile.
In fact, the fact that voter turnout is so low is an extremely positive thing! People piss and moan and bitch about how awful America is and how horrible the middle class has it here, but that's really absurd. Most people here are extremely well off, completely sated by delicious, cheap food and several TVs. In terms of what you can purchase, the poverty line is around 40 times richer than the poverty line 100 years ago.
These people are too happy living their wonderful lives to be bothered to go down to the polls and register their disgust. Sure, many would agree than this nation is headed down the tubes if you asked them, but they don't really any faith in that view. It's just fashionable. When your kid starves, you have a reason to vote. When your kid is a little plump, hey! who cares?
Sure, I'm not apathetic (and I do work on election campaigns), but I understand that low voter turnout = low interest in change.
And frankly, that's a good thing. This enormous empire is a lot gentler than any historical power that could be compared with it, both to other nations and itself. The citizens live pretty long and good lives. Most of the people in jail are actually guilty of something stupid (usually drugs, sadly).
Is there any reason to rise up and march? Yes, I think so, but we've actually made a lot of progress, and some people do not give a shit, for understandable reasons.
Ron Paul was not endorsed by the NAACP, he was endorsed by an Austin NAACP leader who is a huge crackpot. Big freaking difference.
The rest of your post is similarly outright lies.
By now, every serious Ron Paul supporter knows that the lie that these newsletters have been debunked has itself been authoritatively debunked. People have worked hard to prove that Ron wrote this stuff, and the orders inside the Ron Paul machine are to keep pretending it has been debunked, obnoxiously, repeatedly, because that will convince some people. Bill Clinton? George W Bush? Both are moral giants compared to such Ron Paul partners in racism and lies.
Ron Paul indeed did write a bunch of racist crap. The author claimed Ron Paul's wife as his wife, Ron Paul's grandkids as his grandkids, and Ron Paul's congressional district as his constituents. Ron Paul paid tens of thousands of dollars out of his own pocket printing awful racist hate under the name "Ron Paul." The man is not fit to be spat upon. And the voters have rejected this piece of shit. I hope you gave him a lot of money. It's going to Mccain now that Ron Paul mist quit and fight an uphill battle to keep his seat in congress now that Galveston knows he is supported my an army of Neo Nazis, legalize-pot single issue voters, and 9/11 truther morons. Your money is better spent on the GOP convention than on more swastikas or weed.
You'd have to be extremely tolerant of racism to tolerate Ron Paul. You'd have to be a bigoted fool to make up lies to protect a monster like Ron Paul.
What is it with people like you? You have to know you're totally making this stuff up!
laserdisc? Ha, I bet that thing is actually pretty cool, man.
All I mean is that, unlike many blu-ray players, the PS3 does not send out multichannel sound. You need a device that can decode the optical sound. If you have a audio system that will taket the optical outpout and give you surround sound, you're good to go.
And yeah, the cheap blu-ray players are similar in this respect, but it's still a fair point for those wanting the PS3 solely as a blu-ray player. It's not as good in the audio department at similarly priced standalone players, and you need a modern audio device.
Not a huge point, perhaps, since if you really care about audio you might as well get a seperate audio system, but it's still something to note.
Am I in the wrong thread? Why was a comment about the price cutting strategy of removing b/c from PS3s off-topic in a thread considering the likelihood of further price cuts on PS3s?
I can understanding moderating my overrated, but offtopic?
There's nothing wrong with noting that Sony has indeed removed an enormously nice feature from their PS3s. Sony fans: don't go crazy modding down this obviously true point.
I know Sony supported this kinda... because it's a Sony format and all, but who gives a shit about SACD? What kind of fucking idiot early adopter owns something that rare and then bitches when it's not supported well? Of course it's not supported well, it's a new audio format in the MP3 age! It's irrelevant. Convert it to a lossless format and leave that shit on a hard drive.
This is about as big an issue as the 40 gb SKU lacking a compactflash card slot. Big fucking deal.
Strange that the "superior" 360 is cheaper yet selling fewer than the Playstation 3, worldwide. Also, I doubt you have a source for your claim that the 120gb PS3s lack backwards compatibility (though I think you're right, I don't think it's set in stone yet).
True, like the wii has awful treatment of PS2 ports, the PS3 has some lame ports of 360 games, but that's largely a past problem, and even EA is making the PS3 the lead console.
And exclusives on teh 360 are decidedly inferior to the PS3's exclusives. Halo cannot compete with Warhawk and Resistance. GoW cannot compete with the Uncharted demo.
I love the 360's library, and there's a lot right about xbox live, but there's also a lot wrong with the 360.
I agree it would be nice if Sony kept the PS2 back compatibility, but it's not hard to get a Playstation 2. I also agree that it's lame that the Blu-ray loads so much slower than the 360, and this issue is becoming a trend.
Anyway, it's extremely bizarre how the 360 fans are going so crazy about this stuff. You can't be happy that PS3 users are headed for a great year? Do you really think it hurts you if the PS3 does well, and feel motivated to come on the internet and do your part to badmouth a very successful system? 2007 was a low point for the PS3, and it still outsold your precious god-console. I wonder why MS hasn't remade its 360 without its flawed red ring design? It couldn't be because they are going to jump out of the generation again, could it? Nah, MS would never abandon support of its system after only a few years....:/
If you like your system, that's great. I think my PS3 is a very interesting device that headed for massive improvements. Sony has had to eat crow, but by God they ate it up and are on the right track. MS is again taking a good product and screwing everything up.
The 360 sold fewer consoles last year than the PS3. It "won" in the US, but it's market share percentage is dropping radically.
Basically, the 360 platform is freaking awesome, but it is so because MS was firing all its bullets in 2007 to hamper the PS3, and MS largely failed to do that. It's a great time to be a 360 owner, but there is no doubt that the 360 is no longer defeating the PS3 in the marketplace.
Sony saves a TON of money by avoiding the PS2 back compat. All these die shrinkings and motherboard shrinkings rely on how much simpler things are with the PS2 gone. $350 PS3 sells a lot better than $450 one, and if you need a PS2 you can just get one (they don't use the same TV inputs anyway).
I wish Sony could keep the PS2 on the PS3's board for $20, but that apparently is not the case. And Sony is really trying to maximize how profitable it is to develop games for the PS3. The PS2 games get in the way of that. I would never have bought Uncharted except that I had no other games to play. Sony's succeeding here, and even EA is making the PS3 its lead developer system.
Compare that with nintendo's historical failure in the third party area. Sony lives and dies on the happiness of its flood of developers, and I think the PS2 decision speaks to that fact.
Slashdot Mirror
lawyers who abide these tactics are called "rambo" lawyers, and there is always two or three firms in every town that works this way. In fact, the next thing to do if you get divorced but want a fair deal and know your SO is going to be a jackass about it is to hire all the rambo attorneys, tell them your private info, and then drop them so they are barred from taking the case against you (since they have confidential information). The attorneys actually make a decent amount of money from these 'retainers'.
Another note, I don't know where you are, but in many places you can still be married without getting married if you domicile with someone for long enough. Common law marriage and all that.
best thing to do is try for a community property state and know your spouse well enough to know if there are real problems. Sadly, a lot of people get totally screwed.
Where do weirdos like you come from?
Almost everything you've said is completely wrong. HD-DVD did not have better audio quality to blu-ray. Only blu-ray had uncompressed, perfect audio. This was a widely publicizes difference. I can't tell the difference between the aduio quality, but it would take a very uninformed person to claim that HD-DVD was the better.
I also don't know what you mean by HD-DVD usually having the better picture. This was a problem for several blu-rays for a very short time, then the quality of picture was exactly the same. Also, blu-rays cost about half as much to make.
The superior product won, man. The capacity of the disc is 90% of what matters in the digital age. It's not complicated.
You say you hate Sony like everyone else who is informed of the "industry". What industry are you talking about? Consumer electronics? What has Sony done that makes them hateable? They innovate like mad and fall on their faces half the time? That's something to love! You realize you are making a comparison when you use industry and informed. You're claiming that Sony is much worse than competitors. But you don't say how.
I worry that these days a lot of XBOX 360 fans want Sony to be the bad guy to justify their purchase of a console from Microsoft, whose biz practices cannot possibly be compared positively to Sony's.
It was HD-DVD that played dirtiest in this game. We all know the only verified studio bribe was by Microsoft to HD-DVD, not to win, but to screw up and delay blu-ray winning to minimize the market.
So tell me, what are you talking about when you say your information on the industry forces you to hate Sony? Are you just some sort of crazy?
exactly. I never said the PS3 is perfect, but it is much more future proof than the PS2, which was somewhat more bargain oriented and didn't give too much thought to the future.
The Titanic was less sinkable than normal boats of the time, by the way, though you can never fully engineer around human stupidity. Can't compare the big Tit to many other boats of the day on that particular issue.
The entire comparison made between the PS2 and the PS3 is silly. And frankly, it's clear to me that the PS3 would be in far more homes had it more closely followed the PS2, but it didn't. They are both black and play PS1 games and use similar controllers. PS3s don't even use a similar architecture to the PS2, unlike Nintendo and MS's consoles, which are simply advancements of a consistent philosophy.
But this is not the normal physical world we're talking about.
.mpd player, a game emulator, a audio mixer... I always know I'm getting the best quality and least scammy thing if I find the most popular open source version.
When I'm looking for practically ANY utility on the internet. A file converter, an
I never google for such programs anymore without including an open source term of some kind.
Those who haven't figured this out yet, haven't figured the internet out yet.
MS is out to get more than the windows profit from you. Way more. Most of it most folks have no idea about. With Linux, they are mainly out to build market share, and it's easy to see fairly quickly.
You say we should choose the one that wears his motives on his sleeves, and I say that's the best argument to stay away from MS ever.
You're totally right about human nature and how the world is perceived, but man I wish people realized how the opposite is true.
The PS3 and PS2 just have very little in common.
The PS3 is designed to be future proof. That makes your entire argument faulty.
I can't tell you how many times I used to allow broken loops to run, hoping and hoping and pleading that it would work. And sometimes it did.
Computers don't really have that clunky feel anymore, and we're leaving the "hot-rod" modder age that was kinda akin to 60's and 70s muscle cars. Laptops are more like the newer less modable cars, so the OS is the only opportunity I get to have these fun experiences!
yay
Dude, you're just totally fucking wrong.
Democracy isn't about facts. There are very few things we really know, and I would never trust the government to "know" anything. We have opinions. that are often wrong. About WMDs in Iraq, about Hoover-villes, about Don't Ask Don't Tell.
We all have our opinions.
Now, you do realize that the minority is the GOP, right? Their opinions about wars and pork spending really pissed off everybody, and now the dems are in power. I see a HELL OF A LOT of hatred and anger at Republicans. IF you don't you're probably stupid fucking idiot.
You speak of disinformation and lies, but you admit you don't know ANYTHING about Limbaugh. You are demonizing him as a propaganda lying monster, and you have no idea if that's true. Already you are far less honest and far more "hate mongering" than Rush will ever be.
I personally think folks who are that interesting in hearing what one person has to say have something wrong with them. I don't like Rush's program very much. But it's purely American freedom of speech in exactly the way that separates us from the rest of the world. It's one of the few noble American traits that is not fictitious. We live in a world of Al Franken and Rush Limbaugh and free will to listen to who you like, or better, listen to music.
too bad so many people are happy to condemn Rush for "disinformation" that almost certainly is minuscule in comparison to the misinformation you will find in any normal newspaper or even the New York Times.
you freaking crazy.
Yeah, Rush had a problem with drugs. I don't really think that makes him much of a hypocrite. Maybe slightly. Addiction is a disease, and it's bad. If Rush condemns druggies all the time, and becomes a druggie after surgical pains then quits, I don't really think that's something to beat him over the head with.
It's a tragedy. It's helpful. It's a learning tool. I don't really listen to Rush except if I'm driving a very long distance, but I don't hear him condemn drugs anymore, and he probably never did it that much.
You claim he is wrong 100% of the time. That's very arrogant of you, because you are asserting you are right 100% of the time. You think Republican = bad, but I don't see why that's the case at all. Democrats routinely do virtually everything the Republicans do.
You want to talk about a blowhard, attack Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly. I think Rush is significantly more moderate in his temper and tone, though he's obviously no moderate politically.
You call me a pot, but I'm not mirroring your idiotic point of view in any way. I don't think Al Franken is wrong 100% of the time (I actually lean closer to Al than Rush, but that's beside the point). I'd never say something that stupid.
as much as I love the 360's game superiority, this is so true.
MS isn't fighting Sony tooth and nail just to do better, they are trying to dominate and monopolize the entire industry, and when they do, they will have far more draconian rules for getting as much money as possible out of me.
I don't want to see MS buy core IPs to the point where they can control who can complete with them, but MS is clearly trying to do this. I don't want to see subscriptions for everything and zero actual ownership, but that's exactly where we're headed if MS manages to dominate the game industry. Fortunately, I think Nintendo is unstoppable and Sony is showing a lot more strength this year.
but I worry that the excellence of the 360 is more like bait.
yeah, that's the real trick, isn't it?
But the rest of the world is doing a terrific job getting this stuff to work precesily because you (no offense intended) are wrong.
There won't be cherry picking because even poorest neighborhoods are extremely profitable for cable companies. Deregulating would mean businesses would track consumer desire. Why invest in the infrastructure to support the wealthy only? Poor folks like internet, tv, phone, etc. Hell, the probably like it more!
My in-laws are extremely wealthy, and they use far fewer entertainment services than my family, who are pretty freaking poor.
think about it. Why are monopolies needed here and not there? Perhaps you are right with regards to rural lands, but even there I think you are wrong, and urban competition lead to better 3g style services that can help in a wider area.
Man you're crazy.
Rush is definitely a hyperpartisan, but he's an opinion man. Most of what he says is just opinion. He's not comparable to Rwandan massacres, and he's probably more accurate than Air America, (I enjoy both, but Rush is a lot more chill, frankly).
Rush is following a high tradition: free speech. Yeah, I disagree with a lot of it, but I wish all hyperpolitical folks did their work with such a sense of humor about them. I certainly don't think he's dangerous. He's been attacked by censors who are linked to powerful political dynasties, and a lot of the "hate radio" label has come from them. They are your enemy, my friend. They wan tto shu Rush up so they gain some miniscule political advantage. Let Rush speak, and feel free to speak against him. That's what democracy looks like.
It's sad that liberals aren't all like me, and willing to let everybody give their best argument. I don't pretend anyone has all the answers, so no one out there can claim to always be right and Rush to always be wrong. Listen to him sometime, an be serious about it. He's full of goading and he's biassed as all hell, but he really isn't that angry.
No, it's not really a myth if it's true. You can't access your content unless you're logged in, and though this is only a sometimes occasional maybe restriction, it's less than what you paid for, and it's legitimate for customers to complain when they don't get what they paid for.
It is awful enough that 360s are the least reliable console ever (I'm kinda mad because mine failed recently). After that delay in getting a working system, it's kinda lame that we are then punished, even if only a little bit.
MS has its subscription theory it is moving towards, slowly but surely, and these little problems are symptoms of a great disease.
To some extent yeah you will see a better summer, but some shows are forgoing summer. Advertisers don't like summer advertising, so networks just have less reason to keep the audience.
24, namely, could probably show some stuff this summer, but has been pushed all to way to 2009.
Their theory also is that other professors and universities will follow Harvard's lead again. Laugh all you want, but so many aspects of the American education system originated at Harvard.
This is an obvious and important adjustment to the internet.
Go to SSRN and look at the law articles. A lot of very nice ones, the best ones published in a journal that allows a free copy to be distributed. I've seen first hand this trend. Journals will take notice and adjust.
I think more professors want their articles available on SSRN networks than just Harvard's.
I don't think that makes any sense. I will stop kids from smoking crack in my living room, but if I don't notice it, it's still their bad, not mine.
The only problem with this is that consumers don't really have any choice in internet providers. Comcast should be allowed to do whatever the hell it wants with its business, slowing down pink pictures and speeding up blue ones if it likes. So long as the customers know what they are getting and have a choice.
The whole problem is that there really is no market (which is also why these networks are so easily overwhelmed). It's time to dereg all local cable monopolies.
My Z60 also is not quite up to par for Thinkpads. It was not a Lenovo (bought just after the changeover), but I think the T60 and Z60 line just aren't the best Thinkpads.
I don't really think this has anything to do with Lenovo. The laptops are still being made by the same folks, really.
Seriously funny!
But really, they keep your information, and probably sell your information, even if they k-line your account.
They probably also don't cancel accounts for a lot of offensive pics.
Personally, I think you should never enter accurate information into these services. I never give them the right birthday.
I guess most will still use their name, but if everything else is inaccurate, big deal. And if all the info is inaccurate, there will be less incentive to harvest it.
Actually, it is extremely unlikely that whatever you're voting on will come to within 1 vote difference. Especially presidential elections with the electoral college, and most people living in a state like California, New York, or Texas.
Frankly, for most people, voting certainly is a waste of time. But in the one in a zillion chance that your vote will actually determine something other than the margin of victory and extremely subtle message that makes, your vote is worthwhile.
In fact, the fact that voter turnout is so low is an extremely positive thing! People piss and moan and bitch about how awful America is and how horrible the middle class has it here, but that's really absurd. Most people here are extremely well off, completely sated by delicious, cheap food and several TVs. In terms of what you can purchase, the poverty line is around 40 times richer than the poverty line 100 years ago.
These people are too happy living their wonderful lives to be bothered to go down to the polls and register their disgust. Sure, many would agree than this nation is headed down the tubes if you asked them, but they don't really any faith in that view. It's just fashionable. When your kid starves, you have a reason to vote. When your kid is a little plump, hey! who cares?
Sure, I'm not apathetic (and I do work on election campaigns), but I understand that low voter turnout = low interest in change.
And frankly, that's a good thing. This enormous empire is a lot gentler than any historical power that could be compared with it, both to other nations and itself. The citizens live pretty long and good lives. Most of the people in jail are actually guilty of something stupid (usually drugs, sadly).
Is there any reason to rise up and march? Yes, I think so, but we've actually made a lot of progress, and some people do not give a shit, for understandable reasons.
Ron Paul was not endorsed by the NAACP, he was endorsed by an Austin NAACP leader who is a huge crackpot. Big freaking difference.
The rest of your post is similarly outright lies.
By now, every serious Ron Paul supporter knows that the lie that these newsletters have been debunked has itself been authoritatively debunked. People have worked hard to prove that Ron wrote this stuff, and the orders inside the Ron Paul machine are to keep pretending it has been debunked, obnoxiously, repeatedly, because that will convince some people. Bill Clinton? George W Bush? Both are moral giants compared to such Ron Paul partners in racism and lies.
Ron Paul indeed did write a bunch of racist crap. The author claimed Ron Paul's wife as his wife, Ron Paul's grandkids as his grandkids, and Ron Paul's congressional district as his constituents. Ron Paul paid tens of thousands of dollars out of his own pocket printing awful racist hate under the name "Ron Paul." The man is not fit to be spat upon. And the voters have rejected this piece of shit. I hope you gave him a lot of money. It's going to Mccain now that Ron Paul mist quit and fight an uphill battle to keep his seat in congress now that Galveston knows he is supported my an army of Neo Nazis, legalize-pot single issue voters, and 9/11 truther morons. Your money is better spent on the GOP convention than on more swastikas or weed.
You'd have to be extremely tolerant of racism to tolerate Ron Paul. You'd have to be a bigoted fool to make up lies to protect a monster like Ron Paul.
What is it with people like you? You have to know you're totally making this stuff up!
laserdisc? Ha, I bet that thing is actually pretty cool, man.
All I mean is that, unlike many blu-ray players, the PS3 does not send out multichannel sound. You need a device that can decode the optical sound. If you have a audio system that will taket the optical outpout and give you surround sound, you're good to go.
And yeah, the cheap blu-ray players are similar in this respect, but it's still a fair point for those wanting the PS3 solely as a blu-ray player. It's not as good in the audio department at similarly priced standalone players, and you need a modern audio device.
Not a huge point, perhaps, since if you really care about audio you might as well get a seperate audio system, but it's still something to note.
Am I in the wrong thread? Why was a comment about the price cutting strategy of removing b/c from PS3s off-topic in a thread considering the likelihood of further price cuts on PS3s?
I can understanding moderating my overrated, but offtopic?
There's nothing wrong with noting that Sony has indeed removed an enormously nice feature from their PS3s. Sony fans: don't go crazy modding down this obviously true point.
I know Sony supported this kinda... because it's a Sony format and all, but who gives a shit about SACD? What kind of fucking idiot early adopter owns something that rare and then bitches when it's not supported well? Of course it's not supported well, it's a new audio format in the MP3 age! It's irrelevant. Convert it to a lossless format and leave that shit on a hard drive.
This is about as big an issue as the 40 gb SKU lacking a compactflash card slot. Big fucking deal.
Strange that the "superior" 360 is cheaper yet selling fewer than the Playstation 3, worldwide. Also, I doubt you have a source for your claim that the 120gb PS3s lack backwards compatibility (though I think you're right, I don't think it's set in stone yet).
:/
True, like the wii has awful treatment of PS2 ports, the PS3 has some lame ports of 360 games, but that's largely a past problem, and even EA is making the PS3 the lead console.
And exclusives on teh 360 are decidedly inferior to the PS3's exclusives. Halo cannot compete with Warhawk and Resistance. GoW cannot compete with the Uncharted demo.
I love the 360's library, and there's a lot right about xbox live, but there's also a lot wrong with the 360.
I agree it would be nice if Sony kept the PS2 back compatibility, but it's not hard to get a Playstation 2. I also agree that it's lame that the Blu-ray loads so much slower than the 360, and this issue is becoming a trend.
Anyway, it's extremely bizarre how the 360 fans are going so crazy about this stuff. You can't be happy that PS3 users are headed for a great year? Do you really think it hurts you if the PS3 does well, and feel motivated to come on the internet and do your part to badmouth a very successful system? 2007 was a low point for the PS3, and it still outsold your precious god-console. I wonder why MS hasn't remade its 360 without its flawed red ring design? It couldn't be because they are going to jump out of the generation again, could it? Nah, MS would never abandon support of its system after only a few years....
If you like your system, that's great. I think my PS3 is a very interesting device that headed for massive improvements. Sony has had to eat crow, but by God they ate it up and are on the right track. MS is again taking a good product and screwing everything up.
The 360 sold fewer consoles last year than the PS3. It "won" in the US, but it's market share percentage is dropping radically.
Basically, the 360 platform is freaking awesome, but it is so because MS was firing all its bullets in 2007 to hamper the PS3, and MS largely failed to do that. It's a great time to be a 360 owner, but there is no doubt that the 360 is no longer defeating the PS3 in the marketplace.
Sony saves a TON of money by avoiding the PS2 back compat. All these die shrinkings and motherboard shrinkings rely on how much simpler things are with the PS2 gone. $350 PS3 sells a lot better than $450 one, and if you need a PS2 you can just get one (they don't use the same TV inputs anyway).
I wish Sony could keep the PS2 on the PS3's board for $20, but that apparently is not the case. And Sony is really trying to maximize how profitable it is to develop games for the PS3. The PS2 games get in the way of that. I would never have bought Uncharted except that I had no other games to play. Sony's succeeding here, and even EA is making the PS3 its lead developer system.
Compare that with nintendo's historical failure in the third party area. Sony lives and dies on the happiness of its flood of developers, and I think the PS2 decision speaks to that fact.