ThunderPeel2001

Apple make good products, they also know how to market themselves. I never said they didn't. So dude, believe me. I was there. The iPod (as it was known back then) was slightly smaller (actually thinner), and slightly lighter. Not "many times"(!). (Where did you come up with that!) The Zune's screen was 20% larger (more akin to what we take for granted today -- the iPod's was pretty small by comparison, especially for watching videos, even though that's what it was known for). The Zune had a MUCH nicer interface that was more intuitive. (The iPod was still entirely limited to that ugly white and blue at the time, and it forced you to go back out of an album, and then into another one if you wanted to change what you were listening to.) Since Apple fan-boys go on and on about the little touches that Apple put into their products, how about these for the Zune? A Zune user could pull off any of the music they had onto their player onto someone else's computer. (The iPod was still massively locked down back then.) You could unplug your Zune without having to "eject" it. (At the time, you got a great big DO NOT UNPLUG YOUR IPOD warning with Apple's player -- tempting corruption if you forgot to click eject.) The headphones were magnetized so the cables wouldn't get so entangled in your pocket. If you unplugged your headphones while a song was playing, the Zune would automatically pause the song, saving your battery, and your place. As a Zune user you could subscribe to the Zune Pass service and get unlimited songs (this has since become popular in the guise of Spotify). And finally, as a nice little sweetener, the Zune had an FM radio built in, too. And how about this? The music sounded much better coming out of the Zune! I did many tests, with several different people, with different songs, headphones, etc., and we all agreed the Zune sounded better. How do I know all this? Because when the Zune came out I was fascinated by the press's reaction to it. I'd just bought one, and my gf at the time had just bought an iPod. We compared meticulously, because we were both interested in which was actually better. (She came to regret buying an iPod, and wished she owned a Zune.) And I watched the press like a hawk. Their reviews were, for the most part, total bollocks. Yes, the Zune was slightly thicker (the actual difference? 0.15 of an inch), and it didn't have a "touch" interface... but that's all the reviews focused on.

I hate the idea of our culture sinking into idiocy as much as the next person, but adults have been enjoying escapism since time began... Dracula? Frankenstein? Sherlock Holmes? The Three Musketeers? Robinson Crusoe? A Christmas Carol? The Invisible Man? The Time Machine? Around the World in Eighty Days? Ivanhoe? Tom Sawyer? Gulliver's Travels? Tristram Shandy? Le Morte D'Arthur? The Canterbury Tales?

As long as you don't ACT on your prejudices, and especially if you try to ignore them, then I think you're doing just fine.

I found it really easy. Not sure what the fuss is. I completed it on my second try.

I know. I was being annoying because no-one commented on it

Did everyone willingly ignore the fact that he thinks adults should play video games, either?

I had (and still have) a first gen Zune. Still works perfectly, and I never had any "false positive" inputs. My brand new iPhone 4S occassionally fucks up when it's playing something that's been paused a few times, something my first gen Zune has never done. The first Zune shat all over the iPod that was available at the time -- and no journalists actually were impartial enough to notice. You're right that Apple were quick to catch up, though. That said, the Zune Software still shits all over iTunes. God damn, I've never used a more frustrating and badly designed piece of software... and fan lunatics still argue with me that it's "perfect".

Sounds like they did a better job of getting this across than Whedon did with Firefly.

I think it's fair to say that if you're holding yourself to such high standards, and trying to purge such reactions, that it's a bit harsh to call yourself racist.

I'm amazed anyone can take that journalist's side. The writer clearly has major issues. Asking someone, "Did you like really like it, or did you just not understand it?" is NOT an insult. One of those two things are usually the reason I re-watch anything and, as I pointed out in the other thread, often if the audience hasn't understood something it's the author's fault. How she took that to mean she was too dumb to understand it, and therefore a massive insult, just gives us an embarrassing insight into her own insecurities. Sorkin can be a dick (there was a whole thing about a writer on The West Wing which he had to apologise profusely for) and yes, I do agree that The Social Network was sexist (sorry, but it was). Does that mean Sorkin is sexist or being a dick in that article? Nope.

I really enjoyed Indie Game: The Movie. As someone who was involved in a tech start-up, I related to a lot of the stuff in it about sacrifice, and whether it's worth it or not. (Personally, I say "no", but have to go through it for yourself to see if you agree or not.) Can't really say I saw any glaring flaws. I think it helps you understand and appreciate who these people are, and what they go through. Despite what others have said, it's quite a feel good movie, and I felt inspired after it was over. One thumb up!

This may have been posted before, but it's brilliant.

*bites tongue off*

I'm also planning on reading that book based on your post, Miffy. It sounds fantastic. Nice to know Sal enjoyed it, too.

Woah, can we say "projection"? That reporter has a massive chip on her shoulder. Consider the following: I had to watch the show twice just to believe (a) how good that script was and ( how incredibly convinced of its goodness, in every sense of “good,” it was. Hence, my first question starts, “I watched the pilot twice ... ” But I don't get to the question part because Sorkin looks as if he wants to say something. I invite him to do so, and he asks, “Because you liked it so much the first time, or because you didn't understand it the first time?” So huge is the hubris in thinking anyone smart enough to write about this show for a national newspaper might not be yet smart enough to understand it, that I just swallow and tell my own truth. Um. Wow. So if you don't understand the show it's automatically your failing? Any decent writer knows that it could easily be their own fault if the audience doesn't understand something, but she automatically takes it to be an insult directed at her. WTH? What an embarrassing and self-absorbed read. And just to be clear, Sorkin can definitely come across like an asshole sometimes, but this is not an example of it.

Yep. Well, this time at least it seems as though the media is on their side. They buried the Zune despite it having a better experience, as you say.

A friend of mine shared this on Facebook and it seemed apt to post here.

Very good!

Anyone catch Cosmopolis, and if so... thoughts?

Yep, you're right, but I was referring to discriminating against someone because of their nationality. Someone who's going to do that is unlikely to change their mind about someone because they have a new passport, and such prejudices are equal to racism, scientifically speaking.

Nintendo said the OPPOSITE, actually. Here's a Japanlish version of the presentation made by the CEO of Nintendo, Satoru Iwata, announcing the XL: "When you only hear about this feature [bigger screen size], you may wonder if the bigger screens are the only difference, or whether Nintendo is launching a Nintendo DS for seniors only. Nintendo does not offer new product for such limited purposes only." http://www.nintendo..../091030/09.html

Just to add 2c: "Nationalism" = racism. They are one and the same. Races don't really exist. I know this has been covered in massive detail here before, but it's my own little crusade to make people aware that traditional stereotypes surrounding race don't really exist, and they're no different than saying, "British people are drunken maniacs".

Yep, you're right. There was plenty of politics in Star Trek. My bad. The thing is that is always seemed really "lite", rather than a deep exploration of them. To me at least. I've not seen that many episodes.

I was about to say the same thing. There was a whole chunk of the film that Kubrick cut out because the special effects weren't good enough. Clarke added that to the book.