...
Extending the use of it is what it was designed to do in the fist place.
I find your comment intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter but only if you will let me know where this "fist" place is.
And don't get me started on the Aussies, who would probably say some crap like
I don't think anyone here would say anything like that here. It doesn't make sense to contract April Fools in any way. And now to go completely off topic onto underpants.
Someone will know what you mean if you said underpants or underwear in Australia but pants would be what it is the USA. More likely we'd call underpants undies (pronounced like dundee (without the d but with a trailing s as in that really bad movie with Crocodile in the title)). Women however can wear panties as well as undies. Of course, if they're white undies depending on your age you might call them bog catchas (named for the brown streak that can sometimes be seen).
As a general rule we're more likely to contract a word (sometimes) and stick an o or some kind of e ending on it (sometimes even an a). Examples like arvo (afternoon), undies (underwear/underpants) and sanga (sandwitch).
I think you meant Frisian not Finnish. English is a Germanic language whose most direct influence was Frisian, since then it's absorbed a lot of other influences. Finnish has completely different origins further back in history.
For a good read about the history of English try to find "The Adventure of English" by Melvyn Bragg (ISBN 0-340-82991-5). It's a surprising interesting and informative book. It's also been turned into a television series for those who are reading challenged (the book is more in depth). It also covers the many dialects of English now in use (including American, Australian, Singlish and others).
The SD industry has previously used Microsoft's FAT filesystem due to it's uniquity.
While uniquity may be a word (see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/uniquity) I think you may have meant ubiquity (b and n are next to each other on the keyboard). It's slightly humorous in your version though.
It's not the number of console's that important in terms of saying who is winning, it's the attach rate that determines profitability (especially for 3rd party games developers) as that's where the money is made. The higher the attach rate the more you can afford to make a loss on the console and make it up in income from software sales.
There's an article here from last year with attach rates listed: http://playstation.joystiq.com/2008/04/25/npd-releases-home-console-attach-rate-ratios-ps3-not-so-hot/
The 360 has a significantly higher attach rate. I'll let you do the math to work out the number of games sold
Unfortunately I do believe attach rates include bundled games.
His statement isn't necessarily true or false (and might be both). Your assertions are however misleading.
Performance has shades of grey and can be subjective. The cell processor is potentially must faster (note the potentially) if the SPEs are used to good effect. With 3 symmetric cores on the 360 vs the cell processors single full core if someone doesn't put in the extra effort (for a smaller market) the PS3 version of a game will lag behind the 360 version.
Performance isn't always about the speed of the bare metal it's also about what you do with it. There are games where the PS3 version is well optimised and performs better (especially in first party titles) however there a lots of games where the opposite is true.
It's disingenuous to say that a first party PS3 title can't run well on an 360, it's a first party title so it will never be available on a 360. You can't make comparisons by hand waving and saying something isn't fast enough to handle something when it's never going to be available on that platform. Next you know we'll have someone saying that the PS3 isn't good enough to run Halo 3 (never mind the fact that it can't run it as it's never going to be available for it).
Disclaimer: I own both consoles - I do prefer the 360 gameplay over the PS3 however.
This is a massive cultural shift.
Exactly, this whole issue probably should have stopped being a legal issue a fair while ago. It should now be a social issue.
I have no idea what should be done but rightly or wrongly when a sizable percentage of the population of a country is engaged in something that is (most likely) illegal it becomes a social issue. Prohibition doesn't work unless most of society accepts it.
In all likelyhood there will have to be reform of the way copyrights are licensed so it's possible to have blanket licensing without the myriad of bodies responsible for collecting fees for different things in different countries. This isn't a situation where the market can solve things as there is no competition allowed when it comes to copyright (excluding things like CC licensing).
I don't think copyright owners, collection societies etc want this seen as a social issue however as that means government intervention and actions being taken they won't have too much say in.
The RIAA need to stop wasting limited court resources on these frivolous lawsuits, and embrace the power of the internet to make sure their artists' concerts are filled, at $200+ per ticket. After all, you'll only fork out that much for a concert ticket if you have HEARD the music and actually LIKE it.
There's one ever so small problem there. In most cases the record companies are not engaged in 360 degree deals that get them part of the artist ticket sales (as much as they're trying to do that these days). If you're already a large artist - why would you?. The companies that make up the RIAA (and others) want to maximise their part of the pie, not give their part away so someone else can make all the money.
Having said that I haven't much sympathy for their situation either.
On what basis?
Errm, on the basis of personal opinion? How else are you going to quantify if something is funny? It is subjective and in the eye of the beholder.
The hardest part of climbing the ladder of success is getting through the crowd at the bottom.
