If it were 13 billion light years away or some shit, then yeah I'd get it. But 6,000???? Can someone with some legit knowledge explain this?
There is no law that I'm aware of that states that objects closer to us have to be somehow newer. The Big Bang happened all around us - yes, right there where you are standing. And everywhere else in the universe. So the oldest thing in the universe may very well be very close to us. In fact, all the sub-atomic particles that you and I are made of are as old as the universe, so that statement is trivially true.
This intuition that old things are very far away probably originates from the fact that when we look at objects very far away, we are looking into the past at "old" objects, because of the limitations imposed by the speed of light. That does not mean that objects closer to us have to be somehow "newer".
"Digital Foundry has published an article from an anonymous but trusted developer outlining the challenges of developing for the Nintendo Wii U. The piece confirms some common perceptions of Nintendo, such as their attitude to third party developers, and presents a few surprises, like networking code not being made available to outside developers until the console was almost on sale."
I have read that time and time again, and every time it seems to indicate that this is the current state of affairs.
Apparently some other devs have come to a different conclusion: http://nintendoenthusiast.com/news/harder-develop-games-wii-u-case-says-renegade-kid/.
But hey, a bit of FUD keeps the day going.
Is this like an American August 2nd, or a rest-of-the-world 8 February?
And no, I did not RTFA. Worried that the FBI would be tracking everybody who is even interested in this news.
All syllogisms have three parts, therefore this is not a syllogism.