Your explanation does not make sense. All the data shows that it's the games that sell a console. Wii sales increased well after phones were available for gaming, whenever Nintendo launched a game that appealed to the mass-market.
The Wii has more popular games than almost any other console. 9 games sold more than 10 million copies, which devastates the numbers from the 360 or PS3.
If the Wii is rotting in a closet, it is because Nintendo stopped making games people wanted to play, and started churning out crap like "Maternal Instincts"-Metroid.
Why would people buy a console when they already have a phone or tablet? Er, why would they buy a console when they already had a PC? Phones and tablets are nothing but personal computers in a different form factor.
People will buy consoles if those consoles have games they want to play. It's also obvious that a lot of types of games simply suck on tablets and phones because you don't have dedicated gaming controls on those. Don't underestimate the power of physical buttons for gaming.
This is one of only a handful of sci-fi movies that many of my female friends and acquaintances have actually enjoyed recently.
Then again, most females seem to enjoy the blatantly misogynistic stalker-rapist fantasy that is the Twilight Saga...
The "casual" market is in fact there all the time. All you need to do is release games the "casual" market wants. Easier said than done, but Nintendo did it with Wii. They managed to release several games that sold better than any game on the other systems.
Nintendo is fucked because they gave up on the "casual" market. The Wii U is an attept at a "hardcore market" console. Nintendo said so themselves. Nintendo will fail at hardcore, so they should return to making "casual" games like 2D Mario and Wii Sports.
Look, Nintendo managed to release games that massively increased the Wii console sales long after the initial rush had died down. This shows that the "casual" market is there for anyone who bothers to make games that cater to this market.
Translated: "Evolution does not contradict my ideology, so I accept it. AGW does, so I reject it."
It is obvious that your position on these has got nothing to do with the actual science.
I gave sources, read up in the thread.
I haven't seen any sources. Why not simply repost them if you actually do have sources?
Youtube his appearance on "The Colbert Report" and "The Daily Show". He has claimed the same thing many times in public formats, so I'm willing to bet it's not restricted to those 2 show episodes. Here is an article where he is making the claim.
I'm sorry, but you can't just point to a couple of TV shows. You need to give me the exact quotes and when and where they were made.
Now, you did come up with one specific example, but it turns out you were lying. He did not say he wants to outlaw religion. He said that teaching creationism to kids is abuse, and that it shouldn't be allowed in schools.
Hard to understand the Westboro Baptist Church example I take it?
No, I want examples of atheists that are the equivalent of the WBC.
If you refuse to admit Krauss is a bigot teaching hatred of Religion then no amount of proof would do any good would it?
He is not a bigot, and is not teaching hatred of religion. But the claim you made was that some atheist somewhere was as bad as the WBC. Evidence, please.
Many atheists are biased the same way a "Bible thumping zealot" is biased. No amount of facts will change their arguments, and they will never consider facts that counter their beliefs. They believe that their beliefs are right, and just like Religious zealots, condemn anyone that believes differently than they do.
So you can't actually back up your claims, and now you're trying to change the subject? That's just in addition to being caught lying, of course.
Again: Whose messages of hating religion? What are these messages? What are they shouting? Who are they? Sources/examples, please.
Surely exile to Ceti Alpha V is more fitting?
Krauss shouts "death to religion" and wants to outlaw it? Sources, please.
The crusades may very well have been a war for land, but they were done in the name of religion. Now, I happen to think the reason for the crusades was justifiable (repel the attacker)...
A militant religionist attacks and kills people. That's why he's called militant. A militant atheist uses words, not weapons, and does not kill anyone.
Whose messages of hating religion? What are these messages? What are they shouting? Who are they? Also: Sources/examples, please.
Mao and Stalin were militant Communists, not Militant Atheists. They killed in the name of Communism, not Atheism. Their opposition to religion was incidental and not a cause of the killing, because religion posed a threat to Communist power.
Stalin and Mao are never referred to as militant atheists. When people talk about militant atheists, they're always referring to people like Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens. Indeed, this was what you were saying as well. You said they were just shouting something, not killing anyone. So you were indeed referring to someone using words and not violence.
Also, Stalin and Mao are dead, and you were referring to current atheists.
Now, again, where are these militant atheists that are shouting "Death to Religion"?
This witty riposte is not currently available in your region.
Sorry about that.