You or your functional equivalent would have said the same thing, substituting Sony for Microsoft, had this guy said the PS3 was going to lose.
Somebody has to sell fewer consoles than the others, that's how this market works, and I have no idea which company it will be (I have a strong hunch it won't be Nintendo), but since both the two roughly equivalent (and therefor most likely to knock each other out) machines are made by 'enemies of/.' it seems that either you or your Sony-twin is destined to continue to be upset somehow.
This article is far from hard news, but c'est la vie d'/. (that is a punctutation disaster)
Perhaps the conservatives would hire 'scientists' to declare that the light bulb was still on, could never go out, even if it did go out it wouldn't affect us, and that nothing could be done about it anyway!
The reason I have a Wii is because it looks fun, and I don't have any old consoles around (my PS2 is in storage in Japan, gamecube went to a roommate, and NES and SNES also given away). Fun is absolutely the most important thing in a console for me.
I don't really care if something is HD or not, I don't give a crap about blu ray, and what else is there to recommend buying a PS3? It won't have any new types of gaming (well, maybe the tilt thing) like the Wii does, and your point about a cricket set is stupid.
Sure, I could buy baseball, golf, tennis, bowling, and boxing equipment for my family, and we could all go to the gym/park/boxing club/bowling alley/country club every time I am in the mood to play. Or, just maybe, I could be slightly realistic and realize that I am not going to have enough people to play a game of baseball, or I may not want to drive an hour to go bowling, or perhaps I don't want to get dressed up and go hang out in 3-degree weather to play golf.
Maybe you live somewhere where the weather is always perfect, and there are always tons of your friends around who want to play whatever game you want to play. Odds are you don't, and that is how Nintendo will find people to play the Wii. And that's just one game.
I'm not saying graphics have no part, but I find with each generation, graphics improvements are increasingly unimportant to me. Sure, I don't want everything to look like pong, but I don't find it difficult to go between, say, Mario 64 and Dragon Quest 8. Graphics can add to a good experience, but not make up for a mediocre experience.
Everyone will have different values attached to graphics/blu ray/etc., but I think most people who play games will agree with me that fun is the most important thing.
So what you're saying is, you aren't convinced that games AREN'T all about fun?
If I were buying the systems based on what I could re-sell the individual components for, or how high a likelihood there is that I could decode my genome with it, then/naturally/ I would get a PS3, because it's the best deal.
If, however, I am interested only in fun, and I am convinced that all three systems offer me about, say, $400 worth of fun-utility, then you tell me, which one is the best bargain?
BTW I am not convinced of that, but I'm just saying, personal utility defines 'bargains.' Someone must have skipped Econ 101.
My point was that if any race a million or two years more advanced than us exists, there would be a million or two light-year bubble of space which could detect their radio emissions. This only applies, however, if these theoretical aliens have to deal with our current understanding of physics for communications.
Our current potential to be noticed is very small, but our potential to notice people is not limited by our short history, only by our current technology and the history of any aliens out there.
Assuming, since there is no evidence in any other direction (we are the only current data point), that life3 on other planets would look like us, there are the issues of timing, on a cosmic scale, and growth across stars. I am convinced that, given just a thousand years or more from now, human beings will start their first interstellar colonies, barring global disasters. With exponential growth, it would probably take a few dozen million years for us to take up a huge part of the galaxy, and our radio waves would probably be detectable across an even larger area.
Now, assuming this is true of other races in the galaxy (obviously a shaky assumption, but any life will have a drive to grow and expand, so not so awful), the complete lack of evidence that other races exist means that no other intelligent races arose significantly before us (in cosmic time), or else any that did wiped themselves out as far as we can tell, either through no longer using electromagnetic waves of any kind (making their stray radiation invisible to us), killing themselves off, or something else.
So, either we are in roughly the same boat as any other sentient species out there, or else post- or pre-date them. It seems unlikely at this point for us to run into a galactic empire or the like, without some major breakthroughs in physics that explain why SETI etc. haven't noticed anything.
here's a more specific breakdown: he says "hajimemashite," which means hello (when you first meet someone) and then so does she. then "yoroshiku onegai shimasu" which means literally, "i make a request," but basically is a completion of a greeting for someone you will be working with.
in different circumstances, you could certainly translate it as "how are you, gentlemen." it's a flexible greeting.
"XXXX people are funny things. Apparently there's a set of complex rules of pronunciation which are occasionally violated, God only knows how they know what they're saying to each other!"
Whatever country you are from, whatever language you speak, there will be things you say that other native speakers would say differently. In English the semi-regularity of our spelling leads some people to insist that the members of a certain group (Americans, Southerners, Welsh, Bostonians, Kiwis, blacks, whatever) don't know how to speak.
Of course, no Brits ever say "Isn't it stupid how we pronounce Worcester?" and few Ivy Leaguers from the northeast say "Ain't our taboos about completely intelligible double negatives and the word 'ain't' pretty stupid?"
Sorry for the little rant (not that/. isn't full of similar), but I was trained as a linguist and find this kind of thing sets me off now and then.
He says "Pleased to meet you" (two different phrases, but add up to that) and "Thank you" for the picture, and she says "Hey, hey, doesn't he (the PC) seem kinda geeky?"
FWIW he doesn't sound like he actually speaks japanese, just for the ad. But maybe he does. Yo, Justin, work on your accent! Ganbatte!
There are important Bill of Rights issues, including the First Amendment (and the 5th, 8th, and 9th have been more noticeable of late as well) that are affected by politics. Basically all of these issues are better reasons than someone's stance on game violence to decide who gets your (usually) worthless vote in your (more or less successfully) gerrymandered district.
Of course, hearing politicians try to talk about games is so painful that it makes me want to vote against all of them on the basis of thier stupid way of communicating (bullshit piled upon bullshit, usually).
Since it's already solidified, it is impossible to work with. Sorry, but all the adamantium in there is going to be in some bizarre shape like a doctor's signature (not that I have room to talk).
As pointed out already, Rush misrepresents things. I used to listen to him five days a week, because I had a mindless manual labor job and needed some stimulation beyond hearing the same songs 4 times a day for weeks on the pop stations. Also, I was interested in learning about what was a huge cultural phenomenon.
You assume that we, who criticize him, don't listen to Rush, but I certainly did, as have many of my more liberal friends. If you look up the facts about an issue and are informed, his bullying, name-calling style comes off as immature and grating. I eventually reached the point that his show made me angry more than it amused or entertained me, and I quit listening.
I will admit to not listening to much Hannity, and every time I hear Michael Savage I cringe. It's like if all my most racist and homophobic neighbors got drunk and had a talk show. But don't try to say I haven't ever listened to Rush. I just realize what bullshit he's spouting and got sick of it.
Before the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, businesses worked just fine while including multiple viewpoints. Furthermore, as a liberal, I am generally HAPPY to know that there is little market for liberal talk shows in the mold of Rush, Hannity, and all the other blowhards that make my local AM worthless. I would not be particularly thrilled to find a bunch of mindless drones as my comrades, which is what I would be forced to think if 'liberal talk radio' (which you claim exists) were anywhere near as stupid as conservative talk radio.
And my final point, a factual issue, is that the radio waves are indeed PUBLIC, and that is why the FCC has power over them. Sure, the radio stations own licenses to use certain frequencies, but the airwaves are still a public good that, in theory, our government is handling in our best interests. The fact of the matter is, and I am speaking de facto and not de jure here, the telecoms own our congressmen, who give the telecoms a relatively free hand in consolidating media ownership to the detriment of the people the congress supposedly represents.
I know between 5 and 10 people who are going to buy a Wii. Assuming all other people also know 5-10 people who are going to buy a Wii, that's 30 to 60 billion sales in the first week alone!
I don't think that's how it works. Gravity should add like vectors, so 1g down and 2g horizontal should provide sqrt(1^2+2^2) or (sqrt5)g in a down-ish horizontal fashion.
"IIRC Guatemalan government was overthrown because the leadership was going to seize the land held by american fruit interests. I think it is closely associated with the phrase 'banana republic' as in a central american government favourable to United Fruit, Dole, etc."
The Guatemalan government had announced plans to purchase and redistribute most of the land controlled by United Fruit. They would use the equivalent of imminent domain, paying the value listed on tax returns. United Fruit had, of course, been cheating and lying on their taxes, vastly underestimating the value of their land. They had some pull with the Dulles brothers and managed to get the government overthrown.
"While I'd like to live forever, I kinda doubt I will...so, I'll be long dead before we run out....so, I'm not too terribly worried."
There's a word for attitudes like that, and it's 'antisocial.' Other applicable words include 'selfish,' 'self-centered,' and 'asshole.' Just because something won't affect you doesn't mean it won't affect *people*. If all you care about is the effect on yourself, then I assume you support things like slavery, rape, genocide, etc. (as long as they aren't happening to you) if they result in cheaper clothes and diamonds for you. Or maybe you DO have an ethical obligation to worry about the overuse of our natural resources?
You are correct that bombs are the real threat. However, if you think about it, it's still not that big a threat. Since it seems clear that any hijackings to fly into buildings etc. are going to be thwarted in the future by passenger intervention (barring extraordinary circumstances, like only a very very small number of passengers), the actual threat of terrorism in flight was decreased severely by the attacks four years ago.
The attacks on the Pentagon and WTC were basically a one-time thing, and having seen them, the flying public will now prevent them from happening again. Bombs, suicidally downing single planes, etc. are still a threat, but the loss of life involved there is not on the order of tens of thousands, as people assume. While it's a threat that needs to be dealt with with reasonable measures, there's a point of diminishing returns in airport security measures. Obviously creating fewer people willing to sacrifice their lives in terrorist actions (probably achievable by backing down in our support of terrorist-tactics-wielding or dictatorial regimes like Saudi Arabia and others, for instance) in combination with reasonable security measures in airports etc. is ideal, but since the word "appeasement" has such political power, we are stuck in as mindless a rut here as our drug war.
Not always, by any means. There are certainly plenty of corrupt Dems out there, but far fewer than Republicans (especially in my state, for what that's worth) from what I can tell, and obviously the executive branch, being all Republican, means the most prominent ones now are also Republican.
I am a liberal and a skeptic (some might say cynic), if you are particularly interested.
The fact that all the things politicians try to get away with shoving down our throats are exposed so quickly has not prevented them from trying. Now, however, the people who learn about all this stuff immediately on the internet, an ever-growing but still-small (way less than half the population) group are well-informed.
There's a huge gap between people who try to find out what's true and people who just accept whatever they want to be true. The more lies there are out there, and the more people realize there are lies, the more people will just decide to believe in whatever reality they like. For instance, no matter how much I point out the relentless corruption of the government in office now, my father has settled on the idea that Republicans and Democrats are basically equally corrupt, which means he won't vote on corruption as an issue anymore. He just has no faith in the reliability of any news source that he or I might find, and he is busy with his life, so he doesn't bother finding out what is true.
When we allow a variety of false "truths" (Kerry's more of a flip-flopper than Bush, Gore claims to have invented the internet, there are WMD in Iraq, there's a connection between Iraq and 9-11, etc.) to stick around on TV long after they are show to be false, we decrease the believability of any TV news.
There is meaningful damage done to our society everytime the bar for truth and honesty in news reporting is lowered further.
Yes, the internet has been great for getting news out to some people, but for most people, it's still just as hard to tell whether to trust little green footballs or rawstory as it is to decide between Fox and (if there were a liberal network I would put it here)
The same is true across most of Japan, up until high school. In high school, kids start bringing their lunches, which are generally quite healthy (rice, pickled veggies, a little fish or meat, maybe a little fruit for dessert is normal), and, usually, prepared by their mothers. It's a real shame the amount of power the food companies have gained in America, but it parallels the general long leash allowed corporate power in the US ('self-regulation' being a popular and ineffectual 'compromise' between those communists who want regulation and the libertarian-types who want us all to be making our own mistakes from the age of 11 on)
Slashdot Mirror
You or your functional equivalent would have said the same thing, substituting Sony for Microsoft, had this guy said the PS3 was going to lose. Somebody has to sell fewer consoles than the others, that's how this market works, and I have no idea which company it will be (I have a strong hunch it won't be Nintendo), but since both the two roughly equivalent (and therefor most likely to knock each other out) machines are made by 'enemies of /.' it seems that either you or your Sony-twin is destined to continue to be upset somehow.
This article is far from hard news, but c'est la vie d'/. (that is a punctutation disaster)
Perhaps the conservatives would hire 'scientists' to declare that the light bulb was still on, could never go out, even if it did go out it wouldn't affect us, and that nothing could be done about it anyway!
Ninja Gaiden rocked! I heard they were gonna do a remake of it . . .
The reason I have a Wii is because it looks fun, and I don't have any old consoles around (my PS2 is in storage in Japan, gamecube went to a roommate, and NES and SNES also given away). Fun is absolutely the most important thing in a console for me.
I don't really care if something is HD or not, I don't give a crap about blu ray, and what else is there to recommend buying a PS3? It won't have any new types of gaming (well, maybe the tilt thing) like the Wii does, and your point about a cricket set is stupid.
Sure, I could buy baseball, golf, tennis, bowling, and boxing equipment for my family, and we could all go to the gym/park/boxing club/bowling alley/country club every time I am in the mood to play. Or, just maybe, I could be slightly realistic and realize that I am not going to have enough people to play a game of baseball, or I may not want to drive an hour to go bowling, or perhaps I don't want to get dressed up and go hang out in 3-degree weather to play golf.
Maybe you live somewhere where the weather is always perfect, and there are always tons of your friends around who want to play whatever game you want to play. Odds are you don't, and that is how Nintendo will find people to play the Wii. And that's just one game.
I'm not saying graphics have no part, but I find with each generation, graphics improvements are increasingly unimportant to me. Sure, I don't want everything to look like pong, but I don't find it difficult to go between, say, Mario 64 and Dragon Quest 8. Graphics can add to a good experience, but not make up for a mediocre experience.
Everyone will have different values attached to graphics/blu ray/etc., but I think most people who play games will agree with me that fun is the most important thing.
So what you're saying is, you aren't convinced that games AREN'T all about fun?
/naturally/ I would get a PS3, because it's the best deal.
If I were buying the systems based on what I could re-sell the individual components for, or how high a likelihood there is that I could decode my genome with it, then
If, however, I am interested only in fun, and I am convinced that all three systems offer me about, say, $400 worth of fun-utility, then you tell me, which one is the best bargain?
BTW I am not convinced of that, but I'm just saying, personal utility defines 'bargains.' Someone must have skipped Econ 101.
My point was that if any race a million or two years more advanced than us exists, there would be a million or two light-year bubble of space which could detect their radio emissions. This only applies, however, if these theoretical aliens have to deal with our current understanding of physics for communications. Our current potential to be noticed is very small, but our potential to notice people is not limited by our short history, only by our current technology and the history of any aliens out there.
Assuming, since there is no evidence in any other direction (we are the only current data point), that life3 on other planets would look like us, there are the issues of timing, on a cosmic scale, and growth across stars. I am convinced that, given just a thousand years or more from now, human beings will start their first interstellar colonies, barring global disasters. With exponential growth, it would probably take a few dozen million years for us to take up a huge part of the galaxy, and our radio waves would probably be detectable across an even larger area.
Now, assuming this is true of other races in the galaxy (obviously a shaky assumption, but any life will have a drive to grow and expand, so not so awful), the complete lack of evidence that other races exist means that no other intelligent races arose significantly before us (in cosmic time), or else any that did wiped themselves out as far as we can tell, either through no longer using electromagnetic waves of any kind (making their stray radiation invisible to us), killing themselves off, or something else.
So, either we are in roughly the same boat as any other sentient species out there, or else post- or pre-date them. It seems unlikely at this point for us to run into a galactic empire or the like, without some major breakthroughs in physics that explain why SETI etc. haven't noticed anything.
If someone wants to take care of their children, they should give them gifts while alive and take out life insurance policies.
Inherited fortunes are tantamount to aristocracy and destroy democracy.
here's a more specific breakdown: he says "hajimemashite," which means hello (when you first meet someone) and then so does she. then "yoroshiku onegai shimasu" which means literally, "i make a request," but basically is a completion of a greeting for someone you will be working with.
in different circumstances, you could certainly translate it as "how are you, gentlemen." it's a flexible greeting.
Language trolls are small-minded idiots.
/. isn't full of similar), but I was trained as a linguist and find this kind of thing sets me off now and then.
"XXXX people are funny things. Apparently there's a set of complex rules of pronunciation which are occasionally violated, God only knows how they know what they're saying to each other!"
Whatever country you are from, whatever language you speak, there will be things you say that other native speakers would say differently. In English the semi-regularity of our spelling leads some people to insist that the members of a certain group (Americans, Southerners, Welsh, Bostonians, Kiwis, blacks, whatever) don't know how to speak.
Of course, no Brits ever say "Isn't it stupid how we pronounce Worcester?" and few Ivy Leaguers from the northeast say "Ain't our taboos about completely intelligible double negatives and the word 'ain't' pretty stupid?"
Sorry for the little rant (not that
He says "Pleased to meet you" (two different phrases, but add up to that) and "Thank you" for the picture, and she says "Hey, hey, doesn't he (the PC) seem kinda geeky?"
FWIW he doesn't sound like he actually speaks japanese, just for the ad. But maybe he does. Yo, Justin, work on your accent! Ganbatte!
There are important Bill of Rights issues, including the First Amendment (and the 5th, 8th, and 9th have been more noticeable of late as well) that are affected by politics. Basically all of these issues are better reasons than someone's stance on game violence to decide who gets your (usually) worthless vote in your (more or less successfully) gerrymandered district.
Of course, hearing politicians try to talk about games is so painful that it makes me want to vote against all of them on the basis of thier stupid way of communicating (bullshit piled upon bullshit, usually).
We will be able to do it, even if your family can't. My family is the Waltons!
Since it's already solidified, it is impossible to work with. Sorry, but all the adamantium in there is going to be in some bizarre shape like a doctor's signature (not that I have room to talk).
As pointed out already, Rush misrepresents things. I used to listen to him five days a week, because I had a mindless manual labor job and needed some stimulation beyond hearing the same songs 4 times a day for weeks on the pop stations. Also, I was interested in learning about what was a huge cultural phenomenon.
You assume that we, who criticize him, don't listen to Rush, but I certainly did, as have many of my more liberal friends. If you look up the facts about an issue and are informed, his bullying, name-calling style comes off as immature and grating. I eventually reached the point that his show made me angry more than it amused or entertained me, and I quit listening.
I will admit to not listening to much Hannity, and every time I hear Michael Savage I cringe. It's like if all my most racist and homophobic neighbors got drunk and had a talk show. But don't try to say I haven't ever listened to Rush. I just realize what bullshit he's spouting and got sick of it.
Before the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, businesses worked just fine while including multiple viewpoints. Furthermore, as a liberal, I am generally HAPPY to know that there is little market for liberal talk shows in the mold of Rush, Hannity, and all the other blowhards that make my local AM worthless. I would not be particularly thrilled to find a bunch of mindless drones as my comrades, which is what I would be forced to think if 'liberal talk radio' (which you claim exists) were anywhere near as stupid as conservative talk radio.
And my final point, a factual issue, is that the radio waves are indeed PUBLIC, and that is why the FCC has power over them. Sure, the radio stations own licenses to use certain frequencies, but the airwaves are still a public good that, in theory, our government is handling in our best interests. The fact of the matter is, and I am speaking de facto and not de jure here, the telecoms own our congressmen, who give the telecoms a relatively free hand in consolidating media ownership to the detriment of the people the congress supposedly represents.
I know between 5 and 10 people who are going to buy a Wii. Assuming all other people also know 5-10 people who are going to buy a Wii, that's 30 to 60 billion sales in the first week alone!
I don't think that's how it works. Gravity should add like vectors, so 1g down and 2g horizontal should provide sqrt(1^2+2^2) or (sqrt5)g in a down-ish horizontal fashion.
"IIRC Guatemalan government was overthrown because the leadership was going to seize the land held by american fruit interests. I think it is closely associated with the phrase 'banana republic' as in a central american government favourable to United Fruit, Dole, etc."
The Guatemalan government had announced plans to purchase and redistribute most of the land controlled by United Fruit. They would use the equivalent of imminent domain, paying the value listed on tax returns. United Fruit had, of course, been cheating and lying on their taxes, vastly underestimating the value of their land. They had some pull with the Dulles brothers and managed to get the government overthrown.
"While I'd like to live forever, I kinda doubt I will...so, I'll be long dead before we run out....so, I'm not too terribly worried."
There's a word for attitudes like that, and it's 'antisocial.' Other applicable words include 'selfish,' 'self-centered,' and 'asshole.' Just because something won't affect you doesn't mean it won't affect *people*. If all you care about is the effect on yourself, then I assume you support things like slavery, rape, genocide, etc. (as long as they aren't happening to you) if they result in cheaper clothes and diamonds for you. Or maybe you DO have an ethical obligation to worry about the overuse of our natural resources?
You are correct that bombs are the real threat. However, if you think about it, it's still not that big a threat. Since it seems clear that any hijackings to fly into buildings etc. are going to be thwarted in the future by passenger intervention (barring extraordinary circumstances, like only a very very small number of passengers), the actual threat of terrorism in flight was decreased severely by the attacks four years ago.
The attacks on the Pentagon and WTC were basically a one-time thing, and having seen them, the flying public will now prevent them from happening again. Bombs, suicidally downing single planes, etc. are still a threat, but the loss of life involved there is not on the order of tens of thousands, as people assume. While it's a threat that needs to be dealt with with reasonable measures, there's a point of diminishing returns in airport security measures. Obviously creating fewer people willing to sacrifice their lives in terrorist actions (probably achievable by backing down in our support of terrorist-tactics-wielding or dictatorial regimes like Saudi Arabia and others, for instance) in combination with reasonable security measures in airports etc. is ideal, but since the word "appeasement" has such political power, we are stuck in as mindless a rut here as our drug war.
Not always, by any means. There are certainly plenty of corrupt Dems out there, but far fewer than Republicans (especially in my state, for what that's worth) from what I can tell, and obviously the executive branch, being all Republican, means the most prominent ones now are also Republican.
I am a liberal and a skeptic (some might say cynic), if you are particularly interested.
The fact that all the things politicians try to get away with shoving down our throats are exposed so quickly has not prevented them from trying. Now, however, the people who learn about all this stuff immediately on the internet, an ever-growing but still-small (way less than half the population) group are well-informed.
There's a huge gap between people who try to find out what's true and people who just accept whatever they want to be true. The more lies there are out there, and the more people realize there are lies, the more people will just decide to believe in whatever reality they like. For instance, no matter how much I point out the relentless corruption of the government in office now, my father has settled on the idea that Republicans and Democrats are basically equally corrupt, which means he won't vote on corruption as an issue anymore. He just has no faith in the reliability of any news source that he or I might find, and he is busy with his life, so he doesn't bother finding out what is true.
When we allow a variety of false "truths" (Kerry's more of a flip-flopper than Bush, Gore claims to have invented the internet, there are WMD in Iraq, there's a connection between Iraq and 9-11, etc.) to stick around on TV long after they are show to be false, we decrease the believability of any TV news.
There is meaningful damage done to our society everytime the bar for truth and honesty in news reporting is lowered further.
Yes, the internet has been great for getting news out to some people, but for most people, it's still just as hard to tell whether to trust little green footballs or rawstory as it is to decide between Fox and (if there were a liberal network I would put it here)
I wish there was a -1 Incorrect mod.
That and the +1 Depressing are the two most necessary additions to the modding system.
The same is true across most of Japan, up until high school. In high school, kids start bringing their lunches, which are generally quite healthy (rice, pickled veggies, a little fish or meat, maybe a little fruit for dessert is normal), and, usually, prepared by their mothers. It's a real shame the amount of power the food companies have gained in America, but it parallels the general long leash allowed corporate power in the US ('self-regulation' being a popular and ineffectual 'compromise' between those communists who want regulation and the libertarian-types who want us all to be making our own mistakes from the age of 11 on)