> And of all three consoles, it was still in last place, beat by Microsoft's very first console ever...
the difference being that the GC made a profit for Nintendo, whereas MS made a loss ("investment") of 4 billion dollars and still doesn't expect to see an overall profit for years to come.
not a total win. it sets the precedent that having a secure OS is not a fundamental part of the OS, but the job of an extra program which is currently free but may not be in the future. the same way MS decided Home users don't need some of the stuff in Professional, they may decide that in the future Home users only need "basic" anti-spyware whereas Professional is the real thing. the whole Home vs. Professional thing is already a scam to get more money from those who are worried they need the "better version".
I don't think you can justify the largest non-nuclear explosion ever just because it was a "side-effect" of economic damage. otherwise it becomes very easy to justify 9/11 since all the targets were economic/military.
on a much smaller scale, I think it's illegal here in UK to set "traps", for example a landmine in your house in case of thieves breaking in. I believe the reasoning is the indiscriminate nature - it could kill a fireman trying to save the house from burning down.
similarly, even in war, indiscriminate killing is ethically wrong and I doubt the gas workers were wearing military uniforms (and I guess the US still pretended to care about the Geneva convention back then)
if you subscribe (I don't any more) you can probably find it by searching for "random".
I think the last line is actually something like Dilbert: That isn't very random though. Some guy: That's the trouble with randomness - you can never tell.
this is a BS claim because the 90 days is the time to be held WITHOUT CHARGE, but if your hard drive is encrypted and you refuse to give up the password then you can be charged for that. so there is no need for an extended period of time to hold someone without charge because of hard drive encryption.
the difference with the iPod is there is no artificial low supply. the day the iPod is announced you can order one at the online store and you know that within a couple of weeks you'll have one. they ship as quickly as they're made. there's no talk about "selling out" - in Steve's talks it's all about the number actually shipped.
here with the x-box it's a case of "omg get to teh store the first second it opens or you'll nevar evar get teh one!!!!11 evar!!!1". they don't care how many are sold just how quickly the first batch are sold.
ID isn't derided by scientists for being a strange new theory, it's derided because it isn't a theory at all.
in science, a "theory" must be supported by evidence. there is not a single piece of evidence for ID and even if it were true there still would never be any evidence. it isn't bad science or strange science or controversial science, because it isn't science at all.
>of creationism and evolution, neither has been proven
this is a very common opinion but also a very wrong one.
evolution is supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence. fundamentalists like to suggest there's some sort of genuine debate about whether it's true when in fact no one but fundamentalists doubt it.
creationism is not supported by any evidence. even worse for Christian creationism, the Bible has 2 creation myths which aren't even self-consistent. plus, if you study the history of religion then you see that the early Christians didn't believe the myths to be literally true anyway - they were just supposed to embody an idea. in the case of Genesis the basic idea is that the Universe was created by a God in an orderly way and hence that love and peace are good. it makes more sense when compared with alternative creation myths which involve violent struggles between different Gods.
the idea that the bible is literally true is a very common one. in fact it's an unfortunate side-effect of the success of science. originally science was for the realm of fact and religion was for the realm of emotion etc. because science has been so successful, now almost everyone assumes a materialist philosophy with an underlying assumption that things only have value if "true". hence insecure Christians demand that the bible be literally true. early Christians did not believe this and in fact to some even the question of whether God actually existed was considered irrelevant since the good of God is in inspired actions (love->emotion->religion) rather than existence (existence->fact->science).
science is based on objectivity, investigation, evidence and peer review.
creationism is based on "the bible is right", "don't think about it, the bible is right", "God works in mysterious ways, the bible is right" and "shut up or go to hell, the bible is right".
they're fighting for their ideals. people don't like to comprimise on those. Martin Luther King didn't have a dream about "mostly equality with a bit of racism thrown in".
why settle for "mostly science with a bit of creationism thrown in" if the bit of creationism undermines the entire scientific method?
now that the iPod with video is out I think the ridiculous nature of the DMCA has become more apparent to some people.
if you live in USA and you copy your legally owned DVD to your iPod then you are a criminal facing the possibilty of a massive bitchslap. most people not living in "the land of the free" are fine.
imagine if it had been the case with CDs, this whole mess would have been sorted out earlier. but maybe now with portable video starting to take a few more steps it will be sorted out.
there was a DMCA case where (if I remember correctly) an automatic-garage-door manufacturer sued another company for making generic remote controls that could activate their doors. the judge said something along the lines that even though some encryption was circumvented in producing the generic remote the DMCA wasn't supposed to prevent people access to their own property (garage). this is similar to the DVD->portable video case.
>Microsoft is good at playing catch up. It is one of the very few things it is very, very good at.
only when they can use their number 1 weapon: abuse of desktop monopoly. otherwise they suck, hence their inability to deal with Google or the iPod.
their only other weapon is throwing loads of money at the problem, like the xbox. unless they're about to start paying people to not use Google, that's not much use.
>I wouldn't feel comfortable knowing my doctor is walking around with digital imaging of my insides on the same device he's currently using to listen to music.
also, the GP mentions a more flexible OS. who needs a flexible OS when you just want to move and view pictures. "flexible OS" is another way of saying "complicated, bloated interface with multiple points for failure".
another AC heard to reply "hey, isn't that the really good product I've heard so much about? I'm definitely buying one! And another for my friend!"
this brings back memories of when I worked in a supermarket and watched a couple of guerilla-advertising whores (it's only counts as "acting" if you can act) pretending to really like ice cream and buying lots of it. then doing it again. the pathetic thing is that they were acting in the most over the top stereotypical "American-TV" way (think Ally McBeal) in the middle of a UK supermarket.
Slashdot Mirror
> And of all three consoles, it was still in last place, beat by Microsoft's very first console ever...
the difference being that the GC made a profit for Nintendo, whereas MS made a loss ("investment") of 4 billion dollars and still doesn't expect to see an overall profit for years to come.
it was on the BBC News front page afew days ago, and the court case is prominent on the technology page.
the BBC rules.
Windows only
have you seen a video iPod in real life?
>It seems like this is a total win for consumers.
not a total win. it sets the precedent that having a secure OS is not a fundamental part of the OS, but the job of an extra program which is currently free but may not be in the future. the same way MS decided Home users don't need some of the stuff in Professional, they may decide that in the future Home users only need "basic" anti-spyware whereas Professional is the real thing. the whole Home vs. Professional thing is already a scam to get more money from those who are worried they need the "better version".
a rape whistle and some plastic knives
lolz, tru dat
I don't think you can justify the largest non-nuclear explosion ever just because it was a "side-effect" of economic damage. otherwise it becomes very easy to justify 9/11 since all the targets were economic/military.
on a much smaller scale, I think it's illegal here in UK to set "traps", for example a landmine in your house in case of thieves breaking in. I believe the reasoning is the indiscriminate nature - it could kill a fireman trying to save the house from burning down.
similarly, even in war, indiscriminate killing is ethically wrong and I doubt the gas workers were wearing military uniforms (and I guess the US still pretended to care about the Geneva convention back then)
if you subscribe (I don't any more) you can probably find it by searching for "random".
I think the last line is actually something like
Dilbert: That isn't very random though.
Some guy: That's the trouble with randomness - you can never tell.
That CIA gas plant explosion 'bug' is disgusting and has America == No.1 Terrorist written all over it if true.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/
this is a BS claim because the 90 days is the time to be held WITHOUT CHARGE, but if your hard drive is encrypted and you refuse to give up the password then you can be charged for that. so there is no need for an extended period of time to hold someone without charge because of hard drive encryption.
the difference with the iPod is there is no artificial low supply. the day the iPod is announced you can order one at the online store and you know that within a couple of weeks you'll have one. they ship as quickly as they're made. there's no talk about "selling out" - in Steve's talks it's all about the number actually shipped.
here with the x-box it's a case of "omg get to teh store the first second it opens or you'll nevar evar get teh one!!!!11 evar!!!1". they don't care how many are sold just how quickly the first batch are sold.
ID isn't derided by scientists for being a strange new theory, it's derided because it isn't a theory at all.
in science, a "theory" must be supported by evidence. there is not a single piece of evidence for ID and even if it were true there still would never be any evidence. it isn't bad science or strange science or controversial science, because it isn't science at all.
>That in itself is not does not make evolution the "truth".
but it does make it science, and we are talking about what should be taught in science classes.
>of creationism and evolution, neither has been proven
this is a very common opinion but also a very wrong one.
evolution is supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence. fundamentalists like to suggest there's some sort of genuine debate about whether it's true when in fact no one but fundamentalists doubt it.
creationism is not supported by any evidence. even worse for Christian creationism, the Bible has 2 creation myths which aren't even self-consistent. plus, if you study the history of religion then you see that the early Christians didn't believe the myths to be literally true anyway - they were just supposed to embody an idea. in the case of Genesis the basic idea is that the Universe was created by a God in an orderly way and hence that love and peace are good. it makes more sense when compared with alternative creation myths which involve violent struggles between different Gods.
the idea that the bible is literally true is a very common one. in fact it's an unfortunate side-effect of the success of science. originally science was for the realm of fact and religion was for the realm of emotion etc. because science has been so successful, now almost everyone assumes a materialist philosophy with an underlying assumption that things only have value if "true". hence insecure Christians demand that the bible be literally true. early Christians did not believe this and in fact to some even the question of whether God actually existed was considered irrelevant since the good of God is in inspired actions (love->emotion->religion) rather than existence (existence->fact->science).
science is based on objectivity, investigation, evidence and peer review.
creationism is based on "the bible is right", "don't think about it, the bible is right", "God works in mysterious ways, the bible is right" and "shut up or go to hell, the bible is right".
they're fighting for their ideals. people don't like to comprimise on those. Martin Luther King didn't have a dream about "mostly equality with a bit of racism thrown in".
why settle for "mostly science with a bit of creationism thrown in" if the bit of creationism undermines the entire scientific method?
now that the iPod with video is out I think the ridiculous nature of the DMCA has become more apparent to some people.
if you live in USA and you copy your legally owned DVD to your iPod then you are a criminal facing the possibilty of a massive bitchslap. most people not living in "the land of the free" are fine.
imagine if it had been the case with CDs, this whole mess would have been sorted out earlier. but maybe now with portable video starting to take a few more steps it will be sorted out.
there was a DMCA case where (if I remember correctly) an automatic-garage-door manufacturer sued another company for making generic remote controls that could activate their doors. the judge said something along the lines that even though some encryption was circumvented in producing the generic remote the DMCA wasn't supposed to prevent people access to their own property (garage). this is similar to the DVD->portable video case.
>Microsoft is good at playing catch up. It is one of the very few things it is very, very good at.
only when they can use their number 1 weapon: abuse of desktop monopoly. otherwise they suck, hence their inability to deal with Google or the iPod.
their only other weapon is throwing loads of money at the problem, like the xbox. unless they're about to start paying people to not use Google, that's not much use.
>I wouldn't feel comfortable knowing my doctor is walking around with digital imaging of my insides on the same device he's currently using to listen to music.
-1, Retarded.
also, the GP mentions a more flexible OS. who needs a flexible OS when you just want to move and view pictures. "flexible OS" is another way of saying "complicated, bloated interface with multiple points for failure".
another AC heard to reply "hey, isn't that the really good product I've heard so much about? I'm definitely buying one! And another for my friend!"
this brings back memories of when I worked in a supermarket and watched a couple of guerilla-advertising whores (it's only counts as "acting" if you can act) pretending to really like ice cream and buying lots of it. then doing it again. the pathetic thing is that they were acting in the most over the top stereotypical "American-TV" way (think Ally McBeal) in the middle of a UK supermarket.
>We could have used them a number of times, but we have chosen other ways to fight wars.
yes, such as cancer-causing depleted-uranium shells and the development of "tactical" nukes.
but then, at least it's a small step up from agent orange and napalm.
>God damnit, people need to stop spreading misinformation on things.
to paraphrase an idiot named after a keyboard, "Microsoft cannot look good without lying about Apple"