"Um it is called an example. In his example, he is contrasting the two people with one "doing it for some higher power and all that entails" and another simply doing something altruistically. Anything you add makes it your example. Not his."
Incorrect. Reread the post I replied to. There was nothing mentioned about reason behind the behavior; it was all about belief or disbelief in a god. He was inferring that the only reason a theist would perform a good deed was because of that belief.
I gave you a response. You attacked my post, which was a reply to someone who was characterizing everyone who believed in the afterlife. Your response cited much more narrow groups of people. This invalidated your argument. I am guessing you didn't have an argument.
"An atheist doing the same act is performing a truly altruistic act, knowing he could either have got away with the alternative and will receive nothing in return."
Nonsense. You can't draw that conclusion. Let's just go ahead and reference murder. If a theist doesn't murder someone, you have no idea if they are avoiding murder because of their religious beliefs or if they just believe it is wrong. Likewise, if an atheist doesn't murder anyone, you still have no idea whether they are doing so because they believe it is wrong or they are afraid of the consequences of having to possibly go to jail.
Unless you can read minds accurately, you have no way of knowing why either person is behaving in the observed way.
"If you believe in an afterlife - you scare the fuck out of me. You don't have the same commitment to THIS life that I do."
Absurd. Prejudging people based on their belief system is foolish and is not going to lead to correct results. Couldn't it just as easily be argued that someone who believes that eternal suffering awaits them if they engage in immoral behavior would be more apt to be committed to not stirring up trouble and not creating a problem for you and your little, illogical mind? (That's rhetorical.)
"btw, Slashdot may be in the USA -- but that doesn't mean, not by far, that only Americans read it, or only American POVs are valid."
btw moron - I didn't say only American point of views were valid. You attacked me for having an American point of view. I showed how an American point of view is obviously valid at this site. Now go crash your car.
They are paid to play the game. They are professionals. There is more than one meaning for the word professional. Your cute little use of quotation marks showed your level of intelligence.
It's a shame you couldn't have responded in a more thoughtful manner and we could have discussed this without animosity. The best colleges are in England and the U.S. MIT is better than any college you have in Norway. Sending your children there costs money. I have invalidated your entire post.
And yes, in the U.S., people drive a lot. I am discussing this issue from a U.S. point of view on a U.S.-based forum.
"Well I know enough to know that if I see "Madden 05", "Madden 06" and "Madden 07" on a shelf, it's very likely they're all football games."
Well, I know enough to know that if I see Final Fantasy I, Final Fantasy II, and Final Fantasy III on a shelf, it's very likely they're all RPGs. Sure, II probably has a few new features over I and the same with III... but at the core they're all still just the same games.
See, if you have no experience whatsoever with the games other than with what you see on a store shelf, then you should stay silent.
"Yeah, if you can't tell, I'm not a fan of the sports genre... I haven't bought even one sports title, unless you count Tony Hawk."
Then do you think you are really in the best position to make a comment like "make tweaks to the same games and release new ones every year with a new year number."
I don't play MMORPGs. Because of this, I tend to avoid commenting on how poor the latest expansion pack for a game in a genre I don't enjoy is.
Sure, for public schools. Most private schools I am aware of don't run bus service so I don't think you can dismiss that out of hand as unrealistic.
"It comes down to a matter of priorities. If parents make raising children their highest priority they can alter their lifestyle to accommodate that decision. It concerns me to see parents criticized for having unpopular priorities."
I was not criticizing the person for having an unpopular priority. I was criticizing him for not making his children his number one priority, by having a number that he could afford and provide for in a proper manner. If a couple can have 3 children where they can only afford to send 2 of them to college, wouldn't it be wiser to plan for this and only have 2 children?
Having only 1 car between 2 adults is a huge hindrance and will impact the lives of those children in many ways. Do you not see how only 1 vehicle is affecting those children?
"Oh sorry Timmy, you can't go to school today because daddy has the car out of town."
You can't afford 2 cars but you thought you could afford 3 kids? Obviously it's too late, but living within your means also involves determining how many children you can afford.
"The 100 million previous PS2 owners (assuming each person only bought one, which is probably only a little off from actuality) already have a library of games that they would like to be able to continue using, driving them towards a PS3. All of this was clearly shown with the transition from PS1 to PS2 with their almost identical market penetration each selling just over 100 million units."
Just because the PS1 and PS2 had a similar number of units sold does not prove that backwards compatibility played a role in that. Show me an actual market report that shows a significant percentage of buyers chose the PS2 for backwards compatibility.
I believe that much more important than past sales and name recognition, games and word of mouth are the driving factors behind console sales.
"I won't say that prior market sales are direct causation of future sales but are at the bare minimum a factor. This is true of all products not just consoles and is one of the driving factors behind why automobile manufacturers drop or continue specific lines."
The console market is quite unique in comparison to the marketing of other products. Past sales can be a factor but I think it is much less a factor when compared to other markets.
"So from these numbers we can show that the worst any market leader has done was to lose 35% of sales and drop to 2nd place. In this generation if Sony were to lose 35% of sales, dropping them to around 65 million, one of their competitors would need to increase by over 300% (or plus 200% depending how you look at it) which, again historically, has never happened for an established manufacturer (Sega came close with the Genesis)."
There are more than enough factors other than previous generation sales and the fact that your sample size is so small to make this fact trivially unimportant. My point was that sales of the PS2 will not play a significant role in how well or poorly the PS3 does.
You are writing a lot but proving nothing because there is no analysis behind your text. I said the numbers didn't matter because I don't believe there is any causation between past sales and current sales. You have shown correlation (to a very limited extent due to the incredibly small number of console releases, statistically speaking) but not causation.
"It may not be clear, but the point is that there are no historic comparisons between the current generation and prior generations in regards to market dominance and future analysis. Even the Atari era has enough significant differences that you can't really use it for this generations projections."
Wasn't that exactly my point?
"I'm not sure how you can make future estimations or market analysis without usage of previous and current statistics (a.k.a Numbers). The numbers are very important since market share and profit are determined by numbers and success is normally rated by market share or profitability. I'm sure it is easier to say that the numbers don't mater than than it is to actually get your facts straight, but that doesn't make it a valid argument."
The numbers from the previous generation of consoles are not important for the point I was making. My point was that past sales do not mean future sales in the console industry. If you want to stop being a prick, we can discuss that. (I am guessing that is not the case.)
"All those people who are denied a PS3 (because of shortages) buy a PS2 and games for that because they know they can move up to a PS3 when they become more available."
I doubt "all" (or even most) of the potential early adopters of the PS3 don't already own a PS2.
The numbers aren't important; I'm sorry you get hung up on that.
The fact is previous generation domination in no way guarantees a company will do well in the next generation. The poster to which I was replying was making that claim.
You weren't aware of the court ruling regarding the PS2. You made an inaccurate statement grounded in false information. I corrected your false information and I am the troll?
Okay, label me all you like but the fact remains that Sony has not included the ability to run Linux as a means to avoid a tariff. Your argument is without substance so you resorted to personal attacks.
"Sony will get 1st place because they can lose half their market from the PS2 and still move 50+ million units and well they won't lose half their followers."
Here's a statement just as foolish (hopefully, it will illustrate a point for you.)
"Nintendo will get 1st place because they can lose half their market from the SNES and still move 50+ million units and well they won't lose half their followers."
Guess what - the PS3 is going to come in a distant 3rd.
"My opinion is that the PS3 has this feature (at least in part) to give Sony some legal leverage"
"The real reason that Sony built this into the PS3 was to avoid import tariffs."
You seem to be pulling back from your original statement. At least in part? That sounds quite different than THE ONE TRUE REASON.
Let's continue...
"Their claim is that since you can run Linux (or whatever), the machine is technically a "computer"."
You see there how you said, "their claim is" - that doesn't say, "their claim might be IF a higher import tax were ever levied on consoles vs. computers in some hypothetical jurisdiction that I cannot name because it doesn't exist", which I would have fully supported. Your language implied something that your subsequent message does not match. Did you make an error in case or did you merely realize you didn't know what you were talking about?
This could have been a much more enjoyable thread if you hadn't been so rude. Blame lies entirely with you; I was merely trying to educate you.
That's because Sony has yet to make the claim to get a tax rebate on the PS3. You've gotten the story confused.
I am trying to respond to you without insulting you (ignoring the rude tone you took). You claimed that Sony was allowing the PS3 to run Linux in order for it to qualify it as a computer. There are flaws in that statement.
1. The PS2 ran Linux and it was decided in court that this was not sufficient to make it a computer. 2. Computers and video game consoles now fall into the same category and are taxed at the same rate, therefore your statement makes no sense whatsoever. In conclusion, you got your facts wrong about an old court decision that went in the exact opposite way of what you claim. Running Linux on a console does not make it a computer. This is established court precedent and it is rendered moot because computers and consoles are taxed at the same rate.
I will accept your apology for the rude tone you took with me now. (Especially considering I am 100% correct and you are 100% incorrect.)
Slashdot Mirror
I gave you a response. You attacked my post, which was a reply to someone who was characterizing everyone who believed in the afterlife. Your response cited much more narrow groups of people. This invalidated your argument. I am guessing you didn't have an argument.
Unless you can read minds accurately, you have no way of knowing why either person is behaving in the observed way.
Don't judge groups of people; judge individuals.
And yes, in the U.S., people drive a lot. I am discussing this issue from a U.S. point of view on a U.S.-based forum.
Take your anti-American rhetoric and stuff it.
See, if you have no experience whatsoever with the games other than with what you see on a store shelf, then you should stay silent.
I don't play MMORPGs. Because of this, I tend to avoid commenting on how poor the latest expansion pack for a game in a genre I don't enjoy is.
"Oh sorry Timmy, you can't go to school today because daddy has the car out of town."
Your rebuttal?
You can't afford 2 cars but you thought you could afford 3 kids? Obviously it's too late, but living within your means also involves determining how many children you can afford.
I believe that much more important than past sales and name recognition, games and word of mouth are the driving factors behind console sales.
The console market is quite unique in comparison to the marketing of other products. Past sales can be a factor but I think it is much less a factor when compared to other markets.You are writing a lot but proving nothing because there is no analysis behind your text. I said the numbers didn't matter because I don't believe there is any causation between past sales and current sales. You have shown correlation (to a very limited extent due to the incredibly small number of console releases, statistically speaking) but not causation.
The fact is previous generation domination in no way guarantees a company will do well in the next generation. The poster to which I was replying was making that claim.
Okay, label me all you like but the fact remains that Sony has not included the ability to run Linux as a means to avoid a tariff. Your argument is without substance so you resorted to personal attacks.
They pour plastic into molds and let them cool. Bricks are then removed from the molds and packaged for sale.
Let's continue...
You see there how you said, "their claim is" - that doesn't say, "their claim might be IF a higher import tax were ever levied on consoles vs. computers in some hypothetical jurisdiction that I cannot name because it doesn't exist", which I would have fully supported. Your language implied something that your subsequent message does not match. Did you make an error in case or did you merely realize you didn't know what you were talking about?This could have been a much more enjoyable thread if you hadn't been so rude. Blame lies entirely with you; I was merely trying to educate you.
I'm going to ignore your insults until I see if you can answer that question.
I am trying to respond to you without insulting you (ignoring the rude tone you took). You claimed that Sony was allowing the PS3 to run Linux in order for it to qualify it as a computer. There are flaws in that statement.
1. The PS2 ran Linux and it was decided in court that this was not sufficient to make it a computer.
2. Computers and video game consoles now fall into the same category and are taxed at the same rate, therefore your statement makes no sense whatsoever.
In conclusion, you got your facts wrong about an old court decision that went in the exact opposite way of what you claim. Running Linux on a console does not make it a computer. This is established court precedent and it is rendered moot because computers and consoles are taxed at the same rate.
I will accept your apology for the rude tone you took with me now. (Especially considering I am 100% correct and you are 100% incorrect.)