Bill McEnaney
Mar 3, 10:05 AM
And I don't see the point in being sexually attracted to anyone of the opposite sex, but since society tells me it's "normal" I live with it nonetheless. It's all a matter of perception and experience. You have yours, I have mine and they're both normal to us.
Sure, different people have different experiences. That's partly why some people feel same-sex attractions and why others feel opposite-sex attractions. Macaroony doesn't see any point in opposite-sex attractions. I don't see any point in same-sex attractions. Here are two videos that explain what I believe about why some people feel same-sex attractions. I think the speaker works for NARTH.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFAJXvxcGrk&feature;=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UziWSdC8Zhw&feature;=related
Pedophilia is immoral - no matter man or woman. Please do not put both homosexuality and pedophilia into the same boat. There are plenty of grown men who abuse underage girls, it's when they happen to be gay that elevates the problem and lazily ties it to homosexuality.
Just as no one chooses to feel same-sex attractions, no one chooses to be a pedophile. I know some pedophiles. But some pedophiles do choose to molest children. I don't want to conflate pedophilia and immoral actions that some pedophiles do because they're pedophiles.
Many people ignore the difference between homosexuality and homosexual acts. Many Christians insist that homosexuality is immoral. But homosexuality is a property, not an action. Nor is it a sin of omission. Homosexuality the property is morally indifferent. Homosexual acts are, I think, immoral. An action can be immoral, even if someone doesn't deserve any blame for doing it.
No, I shouldn't put homosexuality and pedophilia in the same boat. I mentioned the Catholic Church's homosexual-abuse because skunk seems to think my opinions about sexual morality are feelings, not beliefs that are either true or false. Even psychotherapists I've talked with have agreed that feelings are neither truths nor falsehoods. Feelings are neither of those, but there are truths about feelings and there are falsehoods about them. If I only feel that homosexual acts are immoral, should some government outlaw feeling that way?
The phrase "a fact" is ambiguous. It can mean "a truth." It can also mean "a set of actual set of circumstances." There are truths about feelings, and there are feelings about truths. But my feelings aren't truths. Even if moral relativism is true, there are still objective truths about whether some society or other considers some action morally acceptable. And some relativists still hold a self-inconsistent belief when they believe that since every belief is relative to some context or other, there's no such thing as absolute truth. In one sense of the phrase "absolute truth," a truth is absolute when it's true about every context. In that sense of the phrase "absolute truth," I imply a self-contradiction myself when I say that since every truth is relative to some context or other, I imply that it's an absolute truth that there's no absolute truth.
In another sense of the phrase "absolute truth," a truth is absolute when it's true whether anyone believes it or not. Even if I'm mistaken when I believe that homosexual sex is gravely immoral, it's still true that either they're moral or not moral.
Too often, people who feel same-sex attractions suffer needlessly partly because they, others, or both ignore important distinctions. Unfortunately, people often ignore them when their feelings determine too much of what those people believe.
Immoral behavior continues partly because of moral relativism. Instead of conforming our minds to reality, we try to conform reality to our minds. Moral relativists talk as though an action is moral if and only if someone believes that it's moral. Some moral relativists even insist that if you believe that homosexual acts are morally acceptable, and I believe they're immoral, then we're both right. A moral relativist might say the same about the morality or immorality of gay-bashing. But someone is right when he thinks that gay-bashing is morally right, should a court punish him for gay-bashing someone?
Sure, different people have different experiences. That's partly why some people feel same-sex attractions and why others feel opposite-sex attractions. Macaroony doesn't see any point in opposite-sex attractions. I don't see any point in same-sex attractions. Here are two videos that explain what I believe about why some people feel same-sex attractions. I think the speaker works for NARTH.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFAJXvxcGrk&feature;=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UziWSdC8Zhw&feature;=related
Pedophilia is immoral - no matter man or woman. Please do not put both homosexuality and pedophilia into the same boat. There are plenty of grown men who abuse underage girls, it's when they happen to be gay that elevates the problem and lazily ties it to homosexuality.
Just as no one chooses to feel same-sex attractions, no one chooses to be a pedophile. I know some pedophiles. But some pedophiles do choose to molest children. I don't want to conflate pedophilia and immoral actions that some pedophiles do because they're pedophiles.
Many people ignore the difference between homosexuality and homosexual acts. Many Christians insist that homosexuality is immoral. But homosexuality is a property, not an action. Nor is it a sin of omission. Homosexuality the property is morally indifferent. Homosexual acts are, I think, immoral. An action can be immoral, even if someone doesn't deserve any blame for doing it.
No, I shouldn't put homosexuality and pedophilia in the same boat. I mentioned the Catholic Church's homosexual-abuse because skunk seems to think my opinions about sexual morality are feelings, not beliefs that are either true or false. Even psychotherapists I've talked with have agreed that feelings are neither truths nor falsehoods. Feelings are neither of those, but there are truths about feelings and there are falsehoods about them. If I only feel that homosexual acts are immoral, should some government outlaw feeling that way?
The phrase "a fact" is ambiguous. It can mean "a truth." It can also mean "a set of actual set of circumstances." There are truths about feelings, and there are feelings about truths. But my feelings aren't truths. Even if moral relativism is true, there are still objective truths about whether some society or other considers some action morally acceptable. And some relativists still hold a self-inconsistent belief when they believe that since every belief is relative to some context or other, there's no such thing as absolute truth. In one sense of the phrase "absolute truth," a truth is absolute when it's true about every context. In that sense of the phrase "absolute truth," I imply a self-contradiction myself when I say that since every truth is relative to some context or other, I imply that it's an absolute truth that there's no absolute truth.
In another sense of the phrase "absolute truth," a truth is absolute when it's true whether anyone believes it or not. Even if I'm mistaken when I believe that homosexual sex is gravely immoral, it's still true that either they're moral or not moral.
Too often, people who feel same-sex attractions suffer needlessly partly because they, others, or both ignore important distinctions. Unfortunately, people often ignore them when their feelings determine too much of what those people believe.
Immoral behavior continues partly because of moral relativism. Instead of conforming our minds to reality, we try to conform reality to our minds. Moral relativists talk as though an action is moral if and only if someone believes that it's moral. Some moral relativists even insist that if you believe that homosexual acts are morally acceptable, and I believe they're immoral, then we're both right. A moral relativist might say the same about the morality or immorality of gay-bashing. But someone is right when he thinks that gay-bashing is morally right, should a court punish him for gay-bashing someone?
HyperZboy
Apr 8, 01:22 AM
I also don't think brick and mortar stores are dying, just certain types that are easy to purchase same product online like movies, toys, known products that don't need to be checked out.
The average person buying a computer is still not that computer bright like the average Macrumors member.
And there will always be people looking to check out and play with new technology in person.
When Amazon can pull that rabbit out of a hat then I'll admit brick & mortar is done. So far brick and mortar is only done for content sales which can be checked out online and various new ways.
I don't think anybody's going to be buying a lawn tractor or big screen TV on Amazon anytime soon.
Hell, even my success rate buying computers on Ebay has always been sketchy even. About 30% of the time, the items showed up damaged in shipping due to poor packaging. That's why I believe most general consumers will always go brick and mortar for more expensive things that could easily be damaged in shipping.
The average person buying a computer is still not that computer bright like the average Macrumors member.
And there will always be people looking to check out and play with new technology in person.
When Amazon can pull that rabbit out of a hat then I'll admit brick & mortar is done. So far brick and mortar is only done for content sales which can be checked out online and various new ways.
I don't think anybody's going to be buying a lawn tractor or big screen TV on Amazon anytime soon.
Hell, even my success rate buying computers on Ebay has always been sketchy even. About 30% of the time, the items showed up damaged in shipping due to poor packaging. That's why I believe most general consumers will always go brick and mortar for more expensive things that could easily be damaged in shipping.
gnasher729
Apr 27, 08:59 AM
You mean to tell me that Apple, a company that seems to release fairly solid software, "neglected" to test that when disabling an option called LOCATION SERVICES, that it actually disabled location checking properly? Are some of you really so Jobsian?
Call a spade a spade. There's no possible chance this was a mistake. They got caught. They should not be given a pass over it. If a user opts to disable Location Services, they were working under the false impression that their location was no longer being tracked. Seems mighty shifty to me. Doesn't matter how much data might have been user-identifiable. This sounds like something Google would do, not Apple.
You can think what you want. I develop software for a living. This file is not a "feature", and it isn't and never was present intentionally to store your location data. It is a very, very useful collection of data that in some situations makes your phone work faster and save power. Location Services are disabled when you disable them, and enabled when you enable them. Whoever tested this was testing exactly that: That Location Services does its best to find your location when it is enabled, and that it absolutely refuses to look for your location when it is disabled. That's what enabling/disabling location services means. Nobody at Apple ever cared about this file. It wasn't on anyone's radar before people had their paranoia attack.
This file recorded locations of WiFi and cell towers, but only the last time that you have been at each place. Exactly what is needed to improve Location Services. All your history, which would have been much more useful to track you, is deleted. Your actual location, which is known to your phone, and which would have been much more useful to track you, is deleted. All because it didn't serve the purpose of this file, which isn't and never was to track you.
Call a spade a spade. There's no possible chance this was a mistake. They got caught. They should not be given a pass over it. If a user opts to disable Location Services, they were working under the false impression that their location was no longer being tracked. Seems mighty shifty to me. Doesn't matter how much data might have been user-identifiable. This sounds like something Google would do, not Apple.
You can think what you want. I develop software for a living. This file is not a "feature", and it isn't and never was present intentionally to store your location data. It is a very, very useful collection of data that in some situations makes your phone work faster and save power. Location Services are disabled when you disable them, and enabled when you enable them. Whoever tested this was testing exactly that: That Location Services does its best to find your location when it is enabled, and that it absolutely refuses to look for your location when it is disabled. That's what enabling/disabling location services means. Nobody at Apple ever cared about this file. It wasn't on anyone's radar before people had their paranoia attack.
This file recorded locations of WiFi and cell towers, but only the last time that you have been at each place. Exactly what is needed to improve Location Services. All your history, which would have been much more useful to track you, is deleted. Your actual location, which is known to your phone, and which would have been much more useful to track you, is deleted. All because it didn't serve the purpose of this file, which isn't and never was to track you.
citizenzen
Mar 22, 08:28 PM
Plenty of time to move ships into the area if only on a just in case basis.
Enough time to move diplomatically as well?
Enough time to move diplomatically as well?
jholzner
Aug 7, 06:00 PM
Time Machine won't mean much when the HD fails. Back that azz up!
I keep reading stuff like this. I don't think Time Machine works with the reagular harddrive. You have to use it with an external drive.
I keep reading stuff like this. I don't think Time Machine works with the reagular harddrive. You have to use it with an external drive.
leekohler
Apr 28, 09:58 AM
You accuse every 'liberal' in this forum of being blinded by their bias. I suppose all of the 'conservatives' see clearly and are willing to consider all reasonable alternatives. Lol. And then the debate becomes what is reasonable? :p
If he can't stand the heat, he knows where the kitchen door is.
If he can't stand the heat, he knows where the kitchen door is.
Rt&Dzine;
Apr 27, 12:25 PM
Maybe the certificate is legitimate, but I think the original short form would have been more convincing. I like Obama, but I loathe his extreme liberalism.
What does his so-called liberalism have to do with his birth certificate?
What does his so-called liberalism have to do with his birth certificate?
Nuvi
Apr 11, 12:01 AM
I'm a little confused...why was Avid presenting at a Final Cut Pro User Group's meeting anyway? Do they just come in and are like "Hey, you've all made a mistake!" or something?
Because professional editors give flying-F about FCP if Apple doesn't deliver. Its about putting food on the table and not about being a fan boy. If Apple doesn't deliver a solution that is comparable with Avid MC the mass exodus away from FCP will continue. Some iOS stuff and Steve can shove it. Mr Jobs had good sense of keeping his fingers out of the Pixar so I truly hope he doesn't crap on FCS mix.
Because professional editors give flying-F about FCP if Apple doesn't deliver. Its about putting food on the table and not about being a fan boy. If Apple doesn't deliver a solution that is comparable with Avid MC the mass exodus away from FCP will continue. Some iOS stuff and Steve can shove it. Mr Jobs had good sense of keeping his fingers out of the Pixar so I truly hope he doesn't crap on FCS mix.
MacRumors
Nov 28, 06:24 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Reuters reports (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=technologyNews&storyID;=2006-11-28T213349Z_01_N28267036_RTRUKOC_0_US-MEDIA-SUMMIT-UNIVERSALMUSIC-IPOD.xml&WTmodLoc;=TechNewsHome_C2_technologyNews-1) that Universal Music Group Chief Executive said on Tuesday that they may seek a royalty from Apple for iPod sales:
"It would be a nice idea. We have a negotiation coming up not too far. I don't see why we wouldn't do that... but maybe not in the same way,"
Universal made news earlier this month (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/11/20061109124909.shtml) when it was reported that Microsoft had agreed to pay Universal Music a fee for every new Zune Music Player sold. Music studios, of course, currently get a cut from every song sold, but do not get any percentage of iPod sales.
Reuters reports (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=technologyNews&storyID;=2006-11-28T213349Z_01_N28267036_RTRUKOC_0_US-MEDIA-SUMMIT-UNIVERSALMUSIC-IPOD.xml&WTmodLoc;=TechNewsHome_C2_technologyNews-1) that Universal Music Group Chief Executive said on Tuesday that they may seek a royalty from Apple for iPod sales:
"It would be a nice idea. We have a negotiation coming up not too far. I don't see why we wouldn't do that... but maybe not in the same way,"
Universal made news earlier this month (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/11/20061109124909.shtml) when it was reported that Microsoft had agreed to pay Universal Music a fee for every new Zune Music Player sold. Music studios, of course, currently get a cut from every song sold, but do not get any percentage of iPod sales.
illegalprelude
Jul 15, 04:12 AM
Not a chance in the near future. Blu Ray and Sony are in utter shambles right now.
really? off what fact is this based upon or personal opinion? :rolleyes:
really? off what fact is this based upon or personal opinion? :rolleyes:
LethalWolfe
Apr 12, 11:22 AM
So the presentation should be in about 10 hours?
Has any one heard of live coverage? A livestream will probably be too much to ask, but maybe one of the tech blogs is doing a text/photo update.
There have been live streams in the past but last I heard Apple killed it for this meeting.
Lethal
Has any one heard of live coverage? A livestream will probably be too much to ask, but maybe one of the tech blogs is doing a text/photo update.
There have been live streams in the past but last I heard Apple killed it for this meeting.
Lethal
gnasher729
Mar 26, 10:19 AM
There is no way this is a GM. The "reporter" is obviously confused. If it was a GM version that means they would be sending it off for duplication soon. Since WWDC is months away this makes no sense.
To be fair, they are saying "nearing a Golden Master candidate". Which is quite meaningless, because Lion is "nearing a Golden Master candidate" from the time when the first line of code for Lion was written.
Apple has a list of features that need adding to produce Lion, and a list of known problems that need to be fixed. The developers' job is to add the features and to fix the known problems; someone else's job is to find yet unknown problems before customers find them. You get a "Golden Master candidate" when all features are implemented (or management decided that something wouldn't be a feature), and all problems known at that moment in time are fixed. If new problems are found in the "Golden Master candidate" then the developers fix them and create a new "Golden Master candidate". If no new problems are found then the "Golden Master" candidate turns into a "Golden Master", and that will be the released version of MacOS X 10.7.0.
To be fair, they are saying "nearing a Golden Master candidate". Which is quite meaningless, because Lion is "nearing a Golden Master candidate" from the time when the first line of code for Lion was written.
Apple has a list of features that need adding to produce Lion, and a list of known problems that need to be fixed. The developers' job is to add the features and to fix the known problems; someone else's job is to find yet unknown problems before customers find them. You get a "Golden Master candidate" when all features are implemented (or management decided that something wouldn't be a feature), and all problems known at that moment in time are fixed. If new problems are found in the "Golden Master candidate" then the developers fix them and create a new "Golden Master candidate". If no new problems are found then the "Golden Master" candidate turns into a "Golden Master", and that will be the released version of MacOS X 10.7.0.
iGary
Feb 28, 05:14 PM
A same-sex attracted person is living a "gay lifestyle" when he or she dates people of the same sex, "marries" people of the same sex, has same-sex sex, or does any combination of these things. I think that if same-sex attracted people are going to live together, they need to do that as though they were siblings, not as sex partners. In my opinion, they should have purely platonic, nonsexual relationships with one another.
Heterosexual couples need to reserve sex for opposite-sex monogamous marriage. If I had a girlfriend, I might kiss her. But I wouldn't do that to deliberately arouse either of us. If either of us felt tempted to have sex with each other, the kissing would stop right away. I know of a woman who gave an excellent answer when men asked her why saved sex for marriage. She said, "I"m worth waiting for." She lived by her Catholic convictions, and she wouldn't risk letting any man use her as a mere object, as a mere tool.
Some may say, "I have sex with my girlfriend to show her that I love her." If I had a girlfriend, I would hope I would love her enough to protect her from the physical and psychological risks that come with non-marital sex. The best way for me to do that is for my hypothetical girlfriend and me to be celibate before marriage.
Sacramentally same-sex "marriage" isn't marriage. Neither is merely civil marriage of any sort. If I understand what the Catholic Church's teachings about marriage merely civil, it teaches non-sacramental marriage, whether same-sex or opposite-sex, is legal fornication.
Whatever crutch gets you through life.
Heterosexual couples need to reserve sex for opposite-sex monogamous marriage. If I had a girlfriend, I might kiss her. But I wouldn't do that to deliberately arouse either of us. If either of us felt tempted to have sex with each other, the kissing would stop right away. I know of a woman who gave an excellent answer when men asked her why saved sex for marriage. She said, "I"m worth waiting for." She lived by her Catholic convictions, and she wouldn't risk letting any man use her as a mere object, as a mere tool.
Some may say, "I have sex with my girlfriend to show her that I love her." If I had a girlfriend, I would hope I would love her enough to protect her from the physical and psychological risks that come with non-marital sex. The best way for me to do that is for my hypothetical girlfriend and me to be celibate before marriage.
Sacramentally same-sex "marriage" isn't marriage. Neither is merely civil marriage of any sort. If I understand what the Catholic Church's teachings about marriage merely civil, it teaches non-sacramental marriage, whether same-sex or opposite-sex, is legal fornication.
Whatever crutch gets you through life.
GQB
Mar 31, 05:07 PM
This is a smart move. It had to happen sooner or later.
John Gruber would ***** if he could. His opinion is extremely biased.
Wow... classless AND wrong at the same time. Care to go for the hat trick and throw in 'fanboi' too?
John Gruber would ***** if he could. His opinion is extremely biased.
Wow... classless AND wrong at the same time. Care to go for the hat trick and throw in 'fanboi' too?
RebootD
Apr 10, 11:39 AM
Considering the number of shocking disappointments (Lion being more iOS, no FCS updates, glossy everything etc) as of late with Apple releases I'm still not holding my breath that they will release something to take me away from CS5. I would love to be surprised though.
bigmc6000
Aug 11, 11:51 AM
I really really really hope they just go in with a carrier on this (of course requiring Cingular to not cripple the functionality). There's no way in the world Apple would make as much money off of this as if they got in with one of the big guys. Just ask Disney - ESPN mobile is bombing as is Disney mobile. It doesn't work. And most of those you have to pay retail price for the phone - screw that. I'm going to be with Cingular anyway I might as well get them to take $200 off the phone for me.
PLEASE STEVE, GO WITH CINGULAR!!!!!!!
Note; I'm just saying Cingular since they are the only ones who really seem interested in offering iTunes on their phones...
PLEASE STEVE, GO WITH CINGULAR!!!!!!!
Note; I'm just saying Cingular since they are the only ones who really seem interested in offering iTunes on their phones...
snebes
Apr 7, 11:23 PM
I do not intend to be rude, but there is a difference in HDMI cables, no matter what the Internet tells you. Conductors, shielding materials/layers and the way the connectors are put together are a few differentiators. An AudioQuest Coffee cable, for example, which is several hundred dollars ($600 I believe for a 1.5m) is made of pure silver starting with the tips and going the length of the cable. This is not the same as a no name $5 dollar HDMI cable from Amazon.
And how does this relate to the over-priced cables pushed in best buy? Do you think those rocketfish and dynex (aka house brand) cables they push are better than a MonoPrice cable? I've not used an AmazonEssentials cable before--it is probably good--but you are probably thinking of 3rd party sellers on amazon selling cheap china crap.
There is a market for AudioQuest, but in general, it is not the mfgr that is referred to when satirically commenting about best buy's hdmi (and other) cables.
And how does this relate to the over-priced cables pushed in best buy? Do you think those rocketfish and dynex (aka house brand) cables they push are better than a MonoPrice cable? I've not used an AmazonEssentials cable before--it is probably good--but you are probably thinking of 3rd party sellers on amazon selling cheap china crap.
There is a market for AudioQuest, but in general, it is not the mfgr that is referred to when satirically commenting about best buy's hdmi (and other) cables.
ezekielrage_99
Sep 18, 11:33 PM
For the love of God, please, learn to spell.
It's just not the spelling it's the grammatical errors in general as well.
It's just not the spelling it's the grammatical errors in general as well.
iJawn108
Sep 13, 09:22 PM
:p very cool.
I may purchase an 8 core mac pro if they become available. I just love things in 8s
I may purchase an 8 core mac pro if they become available. I just love things in 8s
twoodcc
Aug 12, 09:04 PM
I don't really care if you count the Prologues as full releases or not. The fact remains...
GT1 + GT2 + GT3 + GT4 = 46M
...not 57M like you originally, and incorrectly, said.
but you do care. you are pointing out that you care by what you just typed. if you count the prologues, you get over 57M sold.
You brought up sales, not me. And last I checked, objectively, 100 is more than 57, regardless of how you subjectively look at it.
i disagree. let's bring math into the equation, since you seem to have missed it.
100,000,000/15 = 6,666,667.
57,000,000/8 = 7,125,000.
so GT has sold more copies per game.
No, the only thing that adds to is a stat point on the back of the box. I mean, hooray, someone's 87 CRX is in a racing game. YAY!! :rolleyes:
That is the problem with GT these days. Too much fluff, and lacking in the racing. I mean, whatever, they can make whatever kind of game they want. If they want to fill the game with 1000 cars, 800 of which most people never touch, they can do that. To me, though, they are losing what made the series great years ago.
well again this is your opinion. we all have one. i personally think that if someone is into cars, they will care about their car. not everyone can afford the cars in the game, but it might be nice to see that car that you can afford and have in real life in the game. i mean, the game is meant for people into cars.
NO WAY!!! I never knew that. :rolleyes:
just pointing out the facts. are you doing any different?
Sure, but a "Guinness Record" for it? Again, to much fluff.
they have records for everything. like how much cheese you can eat, or whatever. that's what Guinness Records are
No, it is a concept car that Citro�n paraded around at car shows. Lots of concept cars get built with the fake intention of going into production. But you know what? Almost none of them do. This Citro�n is no different.
but the intention of the car was for the game. how do you not see that? specifically for the game. in fact, it's named GT after the game
My point is, he was trying to use GT's high sales as a quantifier of the series greatness. Then, when I showed 2 examples of other racing game series with higher sales, he said they were different types of racing games, and that they don't count. Which is understandable, because they are not the same type of game. But then, ultimately, as I said before, if you don't count those other types of racing games, you're really only comparing GT to Forza, since that is the only other similar game.
But what does that prove? A game series that has been out for almost 13 years has sold more than a similar type of game series that has only been out for a little over 5 years. Big shock there. I'll be the first to admit that Forza isn't even remotely close to as big of a sales hit as the GT series. But, like I've said before, liking a game is a subjective thing, and everyone is entitled to their own choices. But sales are an objective thing, that has no relevance to somethings greatness.
how does sales have no relevance if something is great? so iPhone sales show nothing to how good it is? or iPod sales mean nothing to how well it is? of course it does. you make games to sell. if they don't sell, you stop making games. and then there wouldn't be this thread, b/c there would be no GT5.
GT1 + GT2 + GT3 + GT4 = 46M
...not 57M like you originally, and incorrectly, said.
but you do care. you are pointing out that you care by what you just typed. if you count the prologues, you get over 57M sold.
You brought up sales, not me. And last I checked, objectively, 100 is more than 57, regardless of how you subjectively look at it.
i disagree. let's bring math into the equation, since you seem to have missed it.
100,000,000/15 = 6,666,667.
57,000,000/8 = 7,125,000.
so GT has sold more copies per game.
No, the only thing that adds to is a stat point on the back of the box. I mean, hooray, someone's 87 CRX is in a racing game. YAY!! :rolleyes:
That is the problem with GT these days. Too much fluff, and lacking in the racing. I mean, whatever, they can make whatever kind of game they want. If they want to fill the game with 1000 cars, 800 of which most people never touch, they can do that. To me, though, they are losing what made the series great years ago.
well again this is your opinion. we all have one. i personally think that if someone is into cars, they will care about their car. not everyone can afford the cars in the game, but it might be nice to see that car that you can afford and have in real life in the game. i mean, the game is meant for people into cars.
NO WAY!!! I never knew that. :rolleyes:
just pointing out the facts. are you doing any different?
Sure, but a "Guinness Record" for it? Again, to much fluff.
they have records for everything. like how much cheese you can eat, or whatever. that's what Guinness Records are
No, it is a concept car that Citro�n paraded around at car shows. Lots of concept cars get built with the fake intention of going into production. But you know what? Almost none of them do. This Citro�n is no different.
but the intention of the car was for the game. how do you not see that? specifically for the game. in fact, it's named GT after the game
My point is, he was trying to use GT's high sales as a quantifier of the series greatness. Then, when I showed 2 examples of other racing game series with higher sales, he said they were different types of racing games, and that they don't count. Which is understandable, because they are not the same type of game. But then, ultimately, as I said before, if you don't count those other types of racing games, you're really only comparing GT to Forza, since that is the only other similar game.
But what does that prove? A game series that has been out for almost 13 years has sold more than a similar type of game series that has only been out for a little over 5 years. Big shock there. I'll be the first to admit that Forza isn't even remotely close to as big of a sales hit as the GT series. But, like I've said before, liking a game is a subjective thing, and everyone is entitled to their own choices. But sales are an objective thing, that has no relevance to somethings greatness.
how does sales have no relevance if something is great? so iPhone sales show nothing to how good it is? or iPod sales mean nothing to how well it is? of course it does. you make games to sell. if they don't sell, you stop making games. and then there wouldn't be this thread, b/c there would be no GT5.
Captainobvvious
Apr 8, 06:52 AM
I don't know if anyone has explained Best Buy's actions at all and why they would hold back on selling stock the have yet.
I run a branch for a construction supply company and am judged based on daily and monthly goals.
It doesn't matter if I do three times my monthly goal this month if I don't hit goal at all next month. It doesn't make sense but it is the way business works. I have held orders that come in at the end of the month for the beginning of the next if I have already hit this month's goal so that I get a head start on next month's.
For the manager at Best Buy he probably felt that it served him better to the corporate big wigs if he hit his goal every day rather than pass his goal one day and not reach it the next.
Is it best for the COMPANY or for the CONSUMER? No... But in this world of sales and numbers managers tend to do what will make their bosses happy, which is to make sure that when they check the numbers on the spreadsheet every day they hit their numbers and don't get yelled at.
I run a branch for a construction supply company and am judged based on daily and monthly goals.
It doesn't matter if I do three times my monthly goal this month if I don't hit goal at all next month. It doesn't make sense but it is the way business works. I have held orders that come in at the end of the month for the beginning of the next if I have already hit this month's goal so that I get a head start on next month's.
For the manager at Best Buy he probably felt that it served him better to the corporate big wigs if he hit his goal every day rather than pass his goal one day and not reach it the next.
Is it best for the COMPANY or for the CONSUMER? No... But in this world of sales and numbers managers tend to do what will make their bosses happy, which is to make sure that when they check the numbers on the spreadsheet every day they hit their numbers and don't get yelled at.
briand05
Apr 11, 11:49 AM
Hopefully it will have LTE. The disappointing thing is the A5 will be outdated by the end of the year/early 2012, if they do in fact use the same processor as in the iPad 2. They better have 1 GB of RAM at least at that point too. If they wait that long I would hope that the iPhone 5 is a pretty big hardware leap.
newyorksole
Apr 11, 02:52 PM
Honestly, I don't mind waiting. The iPhone 4 is a BEAUTIFUL phone. Takes great pictures, fast, responsive, high-res screen etc etc. New apps are being released all the time and getting updated.
While I enjoy the 4 Apple is trying to make the iPhone 5 and iOS 5 amazing so that it'll be MORE than ready for prime time.
We have so much to look forward to: Lion, New MobileMe, Server Farm, iPhone 5, iOS 5
While I enjoy the 4 Apple is trying to make the iPhone 5 and iOS 5 amazing so that it'll be MORE than ready for prime time.
We have so much to look forward to: Lion, New MobileMe, Server Farm, iPhone 5, iOS 5
VanNess
Aug 5, 10:40 PM
Does anyone think the recent "problems" at Apple are going to have any effect on what happens Monday.
Story: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/05/BUGAHKBK3H1.DTL
If there are products that are they "maybe" list, this might put them on the "go" list. Big news pushes stock prices up and pushes the "problem" stories on page 2.
This is steering off-topic, but Rob Enderle is a part-time anti-Apple/pro-Microsoft zealot and a full-time ignoramus who's past record of "analysis" boasts getting it wrong - really wrong - about 99.9% of the time regarding what he has to say about Apple.
So it's no surprise at all that he is virtually a lone voice on this issue pertaining to Jobs, virtually everyone else doesn't see him being implicated in a wrongful way about this.
In any event, it's pure speculation. It's not going to effect the WWDC and the WWDC isn't going to affect SEC matters pertaining to Apple.
Story: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/05/BUGAHKBK3H1.DTL
If there are products that are they "maybe" list, this might put them on the "go" list. Big news pushes stock prices up and pushes the "problem" stories on page 2.
This is steering off-topic, but Rob Enderle is a part-time anti-Apple/pro-Microsoft zealot and a full-time ignoramus who's past record of "analysis" boasts getting it wrong - really wrong - about 99.9% of the time regarding what he has to say about Apple.
So it's no surprise at all that he is virtually a lone voice on this issue pertaining to Jobs, virtually everyone else doesn't see him being implicated in a wrongful way about this.
In any event, it's pure speculation. It's not going to effect the WWDC and the WWDC isn't going to affect SEC matters pertaining to Apple.
