The OUYA is a self-contained computer. It is only missing a display.
You also have to consider that an OUYA with a controller is $100, and that a controller by itself is $50. So this is basically a $50 self-contained computer. I expect the performance to match/or exceed that of other $50 self-contained computers.
My first thought when I saw videos of that fake EBS broadcast was "this is funny."
My second thought was "I hope some nut-job doesn't kill his/her family to save them from being eaten by zombies."
With so many false alerts, will people believe the real thing?
If Bush was motivated by oil (of which you can't prove he actually makes money off oil) then why would he:
* Pass clean air and water acts his first 100 days in office that hurt the oil industry
* Pass two different laws in his 8 years increasing fuel economy standards in cars
* Fine auto-makers who didn't have hybrids
* Create a tax credit for solar panels
* Create a tax credit for hybrids
* Increase research into fuel cell technology
You also stated that Cheney owned Blackwater, which is nothing short of a lie.
Your evidence is linking to an OccupyNWO conspiracy documentary?
I'm quoting easily verifiable facts. You're citing assumptions that are actually lies that you want to fit within your pre-conceived notions of how you want to view the world and accusing me of empty rhetoric. Sorry man, but I only operate on quantifiable facts.
Bush's oil company lost money, then he sold most of his shares. And that was 11 years before he entered the White House, where all of his policies in reality were very anti-oil.
Cheney doesn't own Blackwater. That would be Erik Prince. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Prince
You're spouting pure fiction.
In the enterprise market, iPads and iPhones are everywhere. The reason Microsoft could in theory have won back that enterprise market was providing a device that:
1. Could join a domain and be managed by Microsoft tools
2. Run existing Windows legacy apps
So Microsoft provided
1. An OS/tablet that can't join a domain to be managed by Microsoft tools
2. Can't run Windows legacy apps
So is arguably worse than existing Android/iOS tablets on price and hardware. The software provides less value. And the OS eats up all your storage space.
Honestly, I can't see anyone making an argument for buying a Windows RT tablet.
Firefox these days uses less memory than Chrome.
Mind you, Chrome is still my everyday browser, but Firefox has gotten really good at being efficient with memory.
64-bit browsers are inherently more secure, and can access more memory. Native 64-bit apps also run faster. You're trying to call someone an idiot without realizing that you don't know what you're talking about in claiming there are no advantages.
Adobe had a 64-bit version of Flash.
There is a 64-bit version of Java.
There is a 64-bit version of Silverlight.
What plugin is exactly stopping Firefox from making a 64-bit browser build? They started the 64-bit build project in 2003. Ten years later they apparently struggle to figure it out, even though community members roll their own 64-bit builds all the time.
Yet Hans told the UN repeatedly that he was fine Iraq refusing to comply rather than asking the UN to force Iraq to comply.
The UN authorized the US to go into Iraq in 1991. That authorization was lifted by a cease-fire, but the cease-fire itself could be lifted if Iraq did not cooperate with the terms. 75 times the UN Security Council unanimously declared Iraq wasn't complying. But that logic, the 1991 authorization stood.
The United States didn't roll into Iraq alone. On day one, 30 nations had seen military support. And while the UN Security Council refused Bush's request to authorize war initially, the UN retroactively approved it once it happened and recognized the US occupation of Iraq as a sovereign government in the UN.
During the 9/11 commission, a Senator asked Condoleeza Rice why we didn't simply assassinate Saddam to help ensure national security. She stated that was the past policy of the US government and the CIA to take and take out foreign leaders, but that is not what the US stood for today. Real sovereign authorities don't partake in assassination.
Saddam was effectively removed from power within 48 hours after the war started. Iraqi communications were down. His military couldn't mobilize. Tanks were rolling in Iraq and he couldn't stop them.
The problem wasn't how difficult it was to rob Saddam of power. The problem is protecting people in the vacuum that follows. That is never as simple as you might think.
Millions of people are in danger in lots of other places, we only bother to make stern condemnations, if we bother to take note at all. Why is Iraq special?
Bush also got involved in Liberia where the people were about to revolt and it looked like a bloody civil war was inevitable. Bush helped negotiate a peaceful resolution with the dictator stepping down without a bullet being fired. Obama sent troops into Libya to protect people there. He didn't in Egypt for whatever reason. But no one wants to talk about situations like these, because the world would rather practice confirmation bias that Americans are evil imperialists.
Likewise, that's not a reason to go to war. That's an excuse one can use if one already wants to go to war. It is not compelling us to war.
After WWI, the Treaty of Versailles forbid Germany from re-arming. He ignored the terms of the cease fire. If someone had intervened at some point and enforced the terms of the cease-fire, WWII might have been prevented. (Note this isn't a Godwin where someone incorrectly insists that someone else is just like Nazis. I'm merely linking to the best known example of a cease-fire after a war where a party ignored the terms and illegally pursued weapons again.)
What are you suggesting should be done when someone breaks the terms of a cease-fire and attempts to re-arm after 11 years of failed sanctions? Starve the people more?
...there really isn't any moral argument that we should prevent them from having WMD.
Other than the fact that he already attempted genocide on the Kurds? Other than the fact that he funded terrorism against Israel? Other than the fact that he openly celebrated on 9/11 and congratulated the terrorists and made it quite clear he would do the same if he was able?
Surely, there is a moral argument to prevent someone from obtaining WMD when they've already attempted genocide once. Unless you're saying genocide should always be ignored as a moral argument.
I asked how Bush or Cheney profited.
Bush used to have money invested in an energy company (primarily an oil company) that lost money. And he eventually sold most of his shares 11 years before entering the White House.
Then he spent 8 years in the White House where his policies were actually quite anti-oil.
But if you really want to believe in conspiracies that aren't supported by facts, you're entitled to do so.
Stating that you should stop someone from pursuing WMD is not the same as saying they had ICBMs. The fact that people misunderstood that doesn't mean he lied.
From your linked report:
ISG was unable to complete its investigation and is unable to rule out the possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war.
What we do know is this. We did tip them off. And then we watched a large caravan leave Iraq and go into Syria. Then we didn't find what we were looking for. We don't know what was in that caravan. My statement is that we'll likely never know at this point. I didn't state that we definitively knew that caravan had WMD.
Your report agrees with me.
The brain is a wonderful organ; it starts working the moment you get up in the morning, and does not stop until you get to work.
