I was actually referring to the PSVita, guess I should have made that clearer but I wouldn't be surprised if down they road they looked in to combining the projects.

I meant the PSVita can do most of what a smart phone can do in that it has internet, can play music, play movies, can store files, and who knows what else will be added with software updates. The 3DS on the other hand does very little besides play games. While the PSVita could be considered multimedia device that your could get a ton of use out of without ever playing a game on it the 3DS has a very focused purpose.

Stow your sarcasm, don't you realize this could mean I wouldn't have to volunteer to be designated driver ever again!

Suddenly I don't think people are giving Google enough support, if China's cars can't drive at night what good are they, I'm not gonna start getting hammered mid day cause that's the only time my car can take me home.

but where is the proof behind that?

  Facebook requiring a real name was a rare case on the internet seeing as most similar sites that had gotten big up to that point did not require real names (yes I know there are exceptions). Now during Facebook's reign there have been tons of sites that work almost exactly the same as Facebook that do not require real names and yet have failed to gain ground. Now the biggest threat that we have seen yet is google+ and it has the same name policy.

I understand that there are way to many factors to consider here for us to use these examples to answer the question posed. However, I think what can be seen is that whether a site requires real names or not may not be very important to the majority of users. While most people here on /. are very careful about what they post on the internet I think we have seen most people on social networking sites have much lower bars on what they consider private.

I think you may be taking it to an extreme, it was inevitable that powerful phones that could play game would steal some of the handheld market but I wouldn't go so far as to say it doomed all handhelds. Just as it was inevitable that netflix would steal money from cable providers, but then it became the job of cable providers to adapt (something they are doing poorly).

However, just because many of technologies have died because they failed to evolve with the times doesn't mean handheld gaming devices will, in fact Sony and Nintendo are both very aware of the changes and have each developed new strategies.

*Apple has designed a phone that can play games. Problem is the games available are nowhere near as powerful or well developed as the competition, and will have a very hard time luring real gamers away from their current devices.

*Sony move the same direction but from the opposite starting point and is creating a gaming device that can do the same functions as a smart phone. This allows gamers to still play their favorite games while being able to get rid of their smart phone, however, it will turn away people who want the their device to be for more serious applications.

*Nintendo on the other hand has taken what I think is a very smart move, while Sony and Apple head in the same direction where one inevitably has to win, Nintendo has decided to distinguish their device and go their own direction. While many would argue Nintendo is doing a poor job currently, I would like to remind people how Nintendo has come from behind and turned a silly childish idea into a huge success. Just because they released one flop doesn't mean they have met their end, many didn't really like the GB Advanced but then they release the GB Advanced SP and sales shot through the roof.

The time may come where technology advances so far that there is no reason why our handheld device doesn't have a phone in it but that time isn't now. Apple may want to claim they are winning but Nintendo would state that they aren't really competing in the same arena.

It an unfair complaint to make because it grades all game on the same scale. It not a question of are the games realistic compared to real life, its are they close enough to realistic in the world they are in. A super hero game can exist on earth but in their "world" having powers is normal and we don't complain but even still in that world there are limits to what those powers can be.

I wouldn't say so much that games like CoD is unrealistic but pushing the bounds of realism. We don't mind health regenerating because that makes the game more fun but if a person can survive a headshot from a sniper rifle that's a step to far. Real life is boring but if a game goes to far over the edge then the player cant feel immersed.

The same can be said for movies, Bruce Willis does some highly improbable stuff (never thought Id state it like that), but it is just inside the bounds of reality that most people can sit back and enjoy the movie, while many other movies push the bounds too far. It's a very careful balance that must be maintained and games that do it well are the ones that are remembered.

Just because he survived doesn't give him the right to kill the English language.

For a long time I was in agreement that requiring real names was pointless, against privacy, blah blah blah.... More recently however I have begun to think otherwise, these social networking sites are based around YOUR identity, that way people find you, recognize you, and identify with you. I got sick of myspace because many people where changing their names weekly, trying to incorporate as many random characters as possible. Actually finding people I knew became next to impossible, on facebook I have found people I haven't talked to in years by recognizing their name.

As stated, there isn't really anything stopping you from using a fake name, in truth the only thing it really requires is that the name you choose looks real and that you don't change it often. I'm fine with that, there are people I know who have a made up name that they use on every site, that has become the identity I know them by online, and they feel safe in the knowledge that it is separate from their offline life.

All Im really saying is that I don't see many legitimate arguments against real names, as many people have pointed out its not really enforced, especially if your name looks legitimate. More people are accidentally banned by a bunch of people getting mad at the person and flagging the profile than facebook stumbling on to your name and locking the account. On the other hand the supposed rule of you having an identity that you are in some effect standing behind is what sets these social sites apart from all the forums filled with trolls.

and myspace allowed you to change your name to whatever you wanted whenever you wanted and people left in droves to facebook which has managed to keep growing at a rapid pace despite all the complaining and all the other startup sites popping up that don't require your real name. Either people secretly like using their real name or it is uncorrelated to whether a site fails or succeeds.

They make it seem so sophisticated, "It's an 'encrypted, very secure..." I bet I could have made an account and figured out where they were going. People are now willing to post where they are going to strike next, open for anyone to see, and the police want to shut it down? Lets just face it, when even the rioters tipping off police ahead of time isnt helpful enough to do anything about the riot then you need to re-evaluate your law enforcement.

For one I still have to throw some doubt here because I dont remember us landing on any meteorites lately to be making this claim as intently as the poorly written article does. Still what significance if any does this have? As others have stated, we have shown that the building blocks of life exist all throughout the universe but actual life itself still evades us. It would seem that before we trouble ourselves with the question of where the building blocks came from we should figure out how they got put together. I believe I learned fairly early on in school that working backwards through a problem was one of the easier ways of figuring it out.

Its true that as stated there are very few plot directions and in truth you don't see much variation. Where originality comes in is all the in between stuff, the jokes used, the character development, the world they are in. You may say Star Wars was just the story of King Author but King Author did not have light sabers in it. This ability to insert truly original content in to something that at its base has been done before is what sets movies apart from each other. If you really walk out of a Avatar and all you got was, "ohh that was a man vs nature narrative" then I really feel sorry that you (for lack of a better word) fail at watching movies.

I agree that they are looking at it from a business view, but just as its dumb for consumers to ignore the business point of view its dumb for the provider to ignore the consumer point of view.

I really don't know what was happening behind the scenes, maybe they really couldn't sustain themselves without this price increase. Still they could have done it better. Offer some sort of silver lining, wait till you make a deal with ESPN to stream sports, make a deal with some channels to get tv series posted at the same rate as Hulu, or just save up a bunch of movies you already got the rights to stream and post them today.

From the user point of view the price did not gradually increase to make up for costs, it doubled and they aren't getting anything new out of it. Not to mention Netflix seemed a little cocky with the announcement, they might as well have said, "Ya we know you don't like it but in the end your not going to cancel so why should we give a ****."

Exactly, I would agree that NASA needs to take a look at their management chain but part of the chain they cant do anything about. The government is constantly readjusting their budget and not following through on promised funds. The politicians make the argument that there is work that needs to be done to bring jobs back. Yet despite all these cuts I don't see them doing anything useful, all the funding just heads to the military or bailing out some big business with worse management than NASA.

Now don't get me wrong I am not an anti military guy and I am all for them receiving a large budget but not if it means cutting other important programs to the point where they can not longer function. Military has made huge strides in R&D but it takes decades for it to reach the public. NASA brings the images and information about things light years from earth right to our computers as they discover it. But the government doesn't care about that they know most people wont notice a one or two decade gap in any new information about the universe outside earth.

Dinosaurs became extinct because they had laser eyes and they killed each other. No one has yet been able to disprove this theory.

https://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19135208295