"Judging from both sets of reviews, it looks like Project Gotham Racing 3 - which scored a 10/10 on 1UP - is the only sure winner of the 360 launch games thus far"
No.
Madden is the only football game that is NFL licensed, and football in Amercia is like, well futbol in all those other insignificant countries.
Madden will sell a ton. The rest of them, I dunno.
WHERE DID I EVER SAY I WAS FROM THE UNITED STATES?
I didn't, so all the hot air you just spewed was wasted. Except it was funny to watch you troll along assuming things you don't know to be true.
I would guess that is how you approach life in general, judging by your post. Make incorrect assumptions, based on incomplete evidence, and then run with them because you're too a) stupid or b) stubborn to admit you may have screwed up.
But to completely make an ass out of you, and totally refute your statement, there's this.
If I was in China, saying this would get me killed.
"China and it's government are evil, are run by dictators. The people in charge are liars, and need to be imprisoned or executed."
While in the US, saying the same about the government and it's leaders is not only accepted IT IS PROTECTED AND ENCOURAGED. Boy don't you look dumb now.
"you have the opportunity to drive a SUV in china , and you can eat a hamburger in china... and if you think that the political stuff is so not-free in china, go and try to push communism through in america (everybody rich,working and happy model), you will be killed on the first road that you cross on your way to parliament my friend..."
Parliament? No, the US has "congress" which is the catch all, or "house" and "senate". How can you discuss politics when you're so massively ignorant about such details? And as another refutation, there is a US communist party. They are not any more restricted than the other parties, so again, I've made you look foolish. Or rather, allowed you to do it yourself.
So, apart from being demonstrably wrong about everything you claim, what was your point? That you're ignorant of politics and the world in general?
I guess since the Chinese can get more mp3's, that whole being in imminent danger of being shot JUST FOR WHAT YOU THINK isn't important.
PS, you're a troll, and this was fun, but it's obvious to all that you're just saying stupid shit for a reaction. This is the last one you'll get from me.
The point I wanted to make, which got lost I think, is that there is a pre-disposition to assuming MS will always win, and they will use their resources to do it by making legal action to expensive to pursue. I hate that particualr lie, and have decided to call anyone who tries to spew it.
I frankly don't give two shakes about this case.
I'm just tired of hearing the same garbage spouted in response to everthing that has "MS" and "court" in the same sentence.
Nice, a snide remark that does nothing to address the point.
You made a statement that is in no way true. It is your unproven, undemonstrated OPINION of something that even a troll like you has to admit hasn't happened yet.
Amazingly, you seem to think that reading will somehow make this clear to me. In other words, you think because YOU read something that it must be true. So that makes you a naive troll.
I have some advice, instead of swallowing everything you read as fact, exercise some critical thinking skills. You'll be less naive, and you won't have to troll anymore, because you'll actually KNOW SOMETHING.
You know, this is why you don't understand science.
This has nothing to do with what I "want", only with good science.
So stop with the fucking straw men already.
"You want to be the parent of one of the kids possibly doing permanent damage to his health?"
OH NOES!!!!! THINK OF THE CHILDRENS!!!!!!! Seriously, this is what you came up with?
"Only an idiot would deny all the data."
You and your fucking fallacies, but this one's easy. Since I never denied ANY of the data (I only asked that the data be kept in context, instead of using it to show cause when it doesn't) this doesn't apply to me. Nice try though.
"And all the data (in most part, carried out by highly skilled - shock, horror - scientists) points to a direct link between levels of pollution and childhood respiratory illnesses."
See, the problem with that statement is the "all" which is clearly a lie, since I can find at least one study that disagrees. So why lie?
You see, you're just not very good at rational thinking, as evidenced by your failure to notice the logical fallacies in your post. Instead of railing away at me for holding you to a higher standard your friends do, perhaps you could ask yourself instead if MAYBE you're wrong, and MAYBE I have a point.
Of course not, you must be 100% right all the time, god forbid you ever actually admit you may have overstated your position...
"And as for "Intelligent" Design, well, don't dare put me within a million miles of that crap, even by way of an analogy: evolution is science, based upon observable data (hey, just like the scientific studies that I first mentioned), whereas intelligent design is, by definition, a belief system."
I'm not putting you near it, YOU are. Stop twisting words, playing semantic games, and trying to make your point even after it's been clearly refuted. YOU do it and ID'ers do it too. Stop acting like an ID'er and you'll stop getting treated like one.
"So which of the following would you propose, then?"
None, because I know how to do science correctly.
"So before you tell the guy how stupid he is"
Please quote the section where I called him "stupid". Any time now...
"The reason that so many people think that correlation does equal causation is that in many cases, correlation is a (heuristic/probable) indication of causation."
And in many cases it's not. What was your point?
"And then ask yourself why you are being so skeptical -- what is it you are trying to defend?"
I'm trying to prevent people from making claims based on research that the research doesn't support. People do the same when MS sponsors a study, and no one asks what they're trying to defend, so I have to ask, why do you want people to think that correlation is the equivalent of causation.
"The only "barrier" to public transportation is the fact that we've been sold this "dream" of a nice house in the suburbs."
That's funny I had no idea that I was sold this dream. I thought I lived away from cities because I despise the crowded, dirty, frantically paced conditions. I had no idea I was sold this idea, so I'm in your debt.
Oh wait, no, I was right. I DO hate crowded, dirty, frantically paced city life.
You see, it is immediately obvious that someone is a troll when they try to pawn their preferences off as the right way to do things.
Just because you can tolerate something, doesn't make it right for anyone else. And more importantly, just because you can't make choices on your own, don't ascribe that trait to others.
The US has massive coal reserves, which can be used in the Fischer-Tropsch process to make synthetic fuel and hydrogen, with no significant emissions.
The process has existed for nearly a century, it is only the low cost of oil that currently makes it uneconomical.
There is no doubt in my mind this is the next phase in the "oil economy", that is, converting coal to fuel for current use, and using the hydrogen produced to jumpstart the "hydrogen economy".
"Just look at one of the hundreds of studies that has been performed on childhood asthmas. You'll find that children who live in areas with high levels of car traffic are orders of magnitude more likely to develop respiratory difficulties than those that are in areas with low levels of traffic."
Yay! I get to use one of my favorite lines
CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION.
"If not directly caused by traffic pollution, the evidence at the very least shows that respiratory illnesses are exacerbated by car pollution."
NO! One again
CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION.
With reasoning like yours, is it any wonder ID made it into schools?
"While the cost of a pre-owned car will be lower, financing rates are higher. At least in 2004, when interest rates were between 0-2% for a new car, and 8-11% for a pre-owned car, it really mattered. The new car was more money, but with lower interest, cost less a month; plus, it was newer and carried a warranty, potentially saving money at the mechanic. Finally, a new car will potentially holds it's value longer; While cars are not an investment, its best to lose as little as possible."
You forgot to mention depreciation, which hammers people who buy new cars. If you had calculated that into your equation, all the interest savings in the world won't help.
"I love my new $40,000 car. What do you mean it's only worht $28,000?"
I'm sure if you had done the math correctly, you'd see you're losing money.
Slashdot Mirror
Mod me down if you want, but a few years ago, pets.com could have been listed there too.
This may be an indication of great things to come, or it could be the start of the much speculated upon Linux bubble.
Don't jump to conclusions.
Yeah you know, once McDonalds did that fast food thing, the market was all but closed off to new players...
You have made, quite possibly, the worst argument for anything I have ever seen.
Nicely done.
"Judging from both sets of reviews, it looks like Project Gotham Racing 3 - which scored a 10/10 on 1UP - is the only sure winner of the 360 launch games thus far"
No.
Madden is the only football game that is NFL licensed, and football in Amercia is like, well futbol in all those other insignificant countries.
Madden will sell a ton. The rest of them, I dunno.
Ok, Mr-I-Know-Everything.
... and if you think that the political stuff is so not-free in china, go and try to push communism through in america (everybody rich,working and happy model), you will be killed on the first road that you cross on your way to parliament my friend ..."
WHERE DID I EVER SAY I WAS FROM THE UNITED STATES?
I didn't, so all the hot air you just spewed was wasted. Except it was funny to watch you troll along assuming things you don't know to be true.
I would guess that is how you approach life in general, judging by your post. Make incorrect assumptions, based on incomplete evidence, and then run with them because you're too a) stupid or b) stubborn to admit you may have screwed up.
But to completely make an ass out of you, and totally refute your statement, there's this.
If I was in China, saying this would get me killed.
"China and it's government are evil, are run by dictators. The people in charge are liars, and need to be imprisoned or executed."
While in the US, saying the same about the government and it's leaders is not only accepted IT IS PROTECTED AND ENCOURAGED. Boy don't you look dumb now.
"you have the opportunity to drive a SUV in china , and you can eat a hamburger in china
Parliament? No, the US has "congress" which is the catch all, or "house" and "senate". How can you discuss politics when you're so massively ignorant about such details? And as another refutation, there is a US communist party. They are not any more restricted than the other parties, so again, I've made you look foolish. Or rather, allowed you to do it yourself.
So, apart from being demonstrably wrong about everything you claim, what was your point? That you're ignorant of politics and the world in general?
I guess since the Chinese can get more mp3's, that whole being in imminent danger of being shot JUST FOR WHAT YOU THINK isn't important.
PS, you're a troll, and this was fun, but it's obvious to all that you're just saying stupid shit for a reaction. This is the last one you'll get from me.
The point I wanted to make, which got lost I think, is that there is a pre-disposition to assuming MS will always win, and they will use their resources to do it by making legal action to expensive to pursue. I hate that particualr lie, and have decided to call anyone who tries to spew it.
I frankly don't give two shakes about this case.
I'm just tired of hearing the same garbage spouted in response to everthing that has "MS" and "court" in the same sentence.
It is also a registered trademark.
"I'm not paying 40 grand a year"
For 40 grand a year you should get all the music you want and free handjobs.
Seriously, 40 grand? No f-ing way is it worth it. (and no, I don't care how good you claim your school is, it's still not worth it)
"or keep the server in a free country like china"
Free like China huh?
Right...
"Winner: The one with the deepest pockets! Subverting the not-quite-free-market to hurt consumers everywhere!"
Please exercise some critical thinking skills before you spout a ridiculous, overused meme like this.
Now, I would like you to explain how MS won this case with their deep pockets when
a) THEY DIDN'T WIN!!!
b) THEY DIDN'T WIN!!!
c) The other company was going to win before the settlement.
They settled. That's not a win, not even by the twisted, we-must-all-hate-MS-because-we're-slashbots mentality.
Just because they can pay a fine for their wrongdoings, and that fine isn't up to your standard, that does NOT mean they won.
So give it a rest.
Nice, a snide remark that does nothing to address the point.
You made a statement that is in no way true. It is your unproven, undemonstrated OPINION of something that even a troll like you has to admit hasn't happened yet.
Amazingly, you seem to think that reading will somehow make this clear to me. In other words, you think because YOU read something that it must be true. So that makes you a naive troll.
I have some advice, instead of swallowing everything you read as fact, exercise some critical thinking skills. You'll be less naive, and you won't have to troll anymore, because you'll actually KNOW SOMETHING.
I'm sure you'll welcome such a dramatic change.
"What sort of causative study do you want?"
You know, this is why you don't understand science.
This has nothing to do with what I "want", only with good science.
So stop with the fucking straw men already.
"You want to be the parent of one of the kids possibly doing permanent damage to his health?"
OH NOES!!!!! THINK OF THE CHILDRENS!!!!!!! Seriously, this is what you came up with?
"Only an idiot would deny all the data."
You and your fucking fallacies, but this one's easy. Since I never denied ANY of the data (I only asked that the data be kept in context, instead of using it to show cause when it doesn't) this doesn't apply to me. Nice try though.
"And all the data (in most part, carried out by highly skilled - shock, horror - scientists) points to a direct link between levels of pollution and childhood respiratory illnesses."
See, the problem with that statement is the "all" which is clearly a lie, since I can find at least one study that disagrees. So why lie?
You see, you're just not very good at rational thinking, as evidenced by your failure to notice the logical fallacies in your post. Instead of railing away at me for holding you to a higher standard your friends do, perhaps you could ask yourself instead if MAYBE you're wrong, and MAYBE I have a point.
Of course not, you must be 100% right all the time, god forbid you ever actually admit you may have overstated your position...
"And as for "Intelligent" Design, well, don't dare put me within a million miles of that crap, even by way of an analogy: evolution is science, based upon observable data (hey, just like the scientific studies that I first mentioned), whereas intelligent design is, by definition, a belief system."
I'm not putting you near it, YOU are. Stop twisting words, playing semantic games, and trying to make your point even after it's been clearly refuted. YOU do it and ID'ers do it too. Stop acting like an ID'er and you'll stop getting treated like one.
I skimmed the articles, but I didn't see it.
What are the plans if one of these fails? Isn't the point having two of them?
You didn't get it.
The joke I mean.
"So you would say that the correlation has absolutely no scientific value, then? That correlation never means anything?"
No, I would say don't make up straw men to argue with, which is exactly what you did. Nice try.
"Yes, it was implicit. It was also quite clear what you were implying."
That his reasoning is flawed. If you think that's the same as calling someone stupid, then your reasoning is flawed.
"My point was that just because it's not proof, doesn't mean it's not evidence."
And it doesn't mean it is evidence either. Stop acting like it does.
"Why do you think scientists spend so much time studying correlations between phenonema? Just to keep themselves busy?"
Because correlative studies are easier to do than causative studies, and sometimes the causative studies are impossible to do.
So you admit I was right about you being a troll?
"The city I'm moving to isn't crowded, dirty or frantically paced."
To YOU.
Do you understand why that's important?
Or are you so colossally arrogant that you think your opinion is representative of me?
As I said, the surest sign of a troll is someone pawning their opinion off as fact.
"So which of the following would you propose, then?"
None, because I know how to do science correctly.
"So before you tell the guy how stupid he is"
Please quote the section where I called him "stupid". Any time now...
"The reason that so many people think that correlation does equal causation is that in many cases, correlation is a (heuristic/probable) indication of causation."
And in many cases it's not. What was your point?
"And then ask yourself why you are being so skeptical -- what is it you are trying to defend?"
I'm trying to prevent people from making claims based on research that the research doesn't support. People do the same when MS sponsors a study, and no one asks what they're trying to defend, so I have to ask, why do you want people to think that correlation is the equivalent of causation.
"The only "barrier" to public transportation is the fact that we've been sold this "dream" of a nice house in the suburbs."
That's funny I had no idea that I was sold this dream. I thought I lived away from cities because I despise the crowded, dirty, frantically paced conditions. I had no idea I was sold this idea, so I'm in your debt.
Oh wait, no, I was right. I DO hate crowded, dirty, frantically paced city life.
You see, it is immediately obvious that someone is a troll when they try to pawn their preferences off as the right way to do things.
Just because you can tolerate something, doesn't make it right for anyone else. And more importantly, just because you can't make choices on your own, don't ascribe that trait to others.
In this case though, you are wrong.
The US has massive coal reserves, which can be used in the Fischer-Tropsch process to make synthetic fuel and hydrogen, with no significant emissions.
The process has existed for nearly a century, it is only the low cost of oil that currently makes it uneconomical.
There is no doubt in my mind this is the next phase in the "oil economy", that is, converting coal to fuel for current use, and using the hydrogen produced to jumpstart the "hydrogen economy".
"but the pollution it caused will have a very large footprint"
See, statements like this are why I dismiss people like you.
You can't see the future, so stop stating your opinion as though it were a fact. It doesn't impress anyone, and does nothing to bolster your argument.
"Just look at one of the hundreds of studies that has been performed on childhood asthmas. You'll find that children who live in areas with high levels of car traffic are orders of magnitude more likely to develop respiratory difficulties than those that are in areas with low levels of traffic."
Yay! I get to use one of my favorite lines
CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION.
"If not directly caused by traffic pollution, the evidence at the very least shows that respiratory illnesses are exacerbated by car pollution."
NO! One again
CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION.
With reasoning like yours, is it any wonder ID made it into schools?
"(most respiratory diseases are a direct result of car exhaust)"
Source please.
And all you moronic fucking mods who modded this guy up, ask yourself why you'd swallow such a line without evidence.
"While the cost of a pre-owned car will be lower, financing rates are higher. At least in 2004, when interest rates were between 0-2% for a new car, and 8-11% for a pre-owned car, it really mattered. The new car was more money, but with lower interest, cost less a month; plus, it was newer and carried a warranty, potentially saving money at the mechanic. Finally, a new car will potentially holds it's value longer; While cars are not an investment, its best to lose as little as possible."
You forgot to mention depreciation, which hammers people who buy new cars. If you had calculated that into your equation, all the interest savings in the world won't help.
"I love my new $40,000 car. What do you mean it's only worht $28,000?"
I'm sure if you had done the math correctly, you'd see you're losing money.
"The author considers all of the major factors to show just how much money a hybrid vehicle will or won't save you"
That is like comparing the amount of cardiovascular fitness you gain from sex. It's a small consideration, but not the main reason for doing it.
When subverting the government of China, you're a freedom loving hero.
When subverting the government of any other country around the world, you're a jingoistic, imperialist, racist conqueror.
I love the intellectual dishonesty.