Sony has recently announced to cut out 10,000 jobs. Wonder what that means? And right before the release of PS3?

Intresting... guess they're not doing as good as I thought they were.

I expect a lot of this is Samsung and Apple's fault, what with better advertising.

Of course. Its not sony's fault that they couldnt keep up, cuz its never sonys fault.

Actually, Sony did keep up. The NW-HD1 was smaller than the iPod, lighter than the iPod, more durable than the iPod, had a better battery life than the iPod, and a better codec than the iPod.

And of course you realize that HerLoss was being sarcastic.

Probably not.

Of course I was sarcastic. This is ENTIRELY sony's fault. Laying off 10000 workers is most definitly a sign of economic issues, probobly stemming from their products not keeping up with the rest of the market. myscrnnm blames it on Apple and Samsung, but you cant blame them just because sony is crap in comparison.

My point is that he is wrong. Sony managed to keep up. In many ways, the NW-HD1 was better than the iPod.

But it still failed, obviously. If sony had been able to control the market, they wouldnt be laying off 10000 people.

Seems like it, yes, even if we did point it out.

Most mature people that I know will agree that the NW-HD1 is superior to the iPod in almost every way.

I dont care what the product was. When a company lays off 10000 people, it isnt doing well. PERIOD.

I think you take Sony for granted. And it angers me. Sony was the one who invented the lithium ion battery. If it wasn't for them, we wouldn't have mobile phones, notebook computers, portable media centres, et cetera. We owe a lot of gratitude to Sony, and I think that a lot of apologies should be in order.

Comming from a true Sony fanboy eh?

What is it that you are implying, we are not mature?

It's true. Sony has done a lot of contributions to the world. Another one is the Trinitron television technology. At the time of debute, it created a clearer and brighter image than any other television on the market, such as RCA and Zenith. Now, you racists can all go and use your all-American televisions, but in reality, Trinitron technology is better.

But that is your opinion, is it not?

How about cost-wise?

It is not an opinion. Mature Americans will even tell you that Trinitron technology creates brighter and clearer images than competing technologies. In this case, you can't have opinions. Either it's better, worse, or the same. And it has been proven that it is better. And while you might think, "this guy's an idiot, talking about something being brighter" Brightness can indeed be measured on a real scale. It is called nits, or lumens.

But does brightness constitute greatness in this case? And if so, how should it be weighted? It depends on preference. Somebody might not like brightness.

Please don't tell me what you don't think.

You're talking alot about maturity, Myscrnnm, but part of "maturity" is being able to see more than one side of the story, not being a stubborn mule on one side of the plane.

That is why you can change the brightness settings on a Trinitron television. And you are just going against brightness for the sake of spiting me. Any well-educated person reviewing any type of screen will praise the screen for being bright, and criticise it for being dim.

Ok, let me rephrase that. Someone might not care about it. And that makes it an opinion. That it depends on preference.

And the general preference is that the screen should be bright. I have never seen a professional review of a screen where the reviewer criticised the screen for being bright, or praised the screen for being dim. When the screen is brighter, visibility is better.

The general preference maybe, but it's still a matter of preference, and so it's still an opinion. It doesn't matter if everyone in the world has the same opinion, it cannot be correct or wrong because it's an opinion.

The point of having a screen is so that you can see. If the image is dark and you cannot see it, would you praise the screen?

No, I would not, but it's still an opinion. Just because I agree with the opinion doesn't make it correct, as an opinion cannot be correct, and it cannot be proven or disproven.

That is like saying that wanting more hard disk space is a matter of opinion.

Which it is. It's a matter of desire, which is a matter of preference. You might say that hard disk space is a waste of physical space, although you'd have to be very detached from computers to do so.

The amount of storage that a HDD has does not affect the physical space.

Oh yes it does. A huge 900-petabyte HDD would require at least a houseful of physical space.

A bigger HD is more costly. I only want as much as I need, what's the use of a 200gb HD if you're only going to use 10GB? (like I have)

In that case yes. But also, a 2-gigabyte 3.5" HDD can take up the same physical space as a 1.6-terabyte 3.5" HDD.

Although then, with the one with more HDD space, you pay more for its compactness. Either that or the one with less is just wasting physical space.

Just shut up. You know I'm right.

Nah, each bit of information has to be stored somewhere, and if the storage method is inefficent, then too bad.

Hard disks store information more efficiently than flash memory.

That's not what I meant. Obviously, if a 1.6TB HDD takes the same amount of space as a 2GB one, the 2GB one has much less efficient storage.

I know. But that's not the point. My point is that they take up roughly the same physical space.

Yet if you have a normal tower case, a 5" drive isnt going to make much of a difference.

Also, back to tv's and moniter's and crap, try reading small print like is being shown here on an ultra-bright screen. Its all blurred.

It's not blurred on my screen. You must be using a screen of poor quality.

Maybe you dont have UltraBrite gaming technology?

Pssh. I use Sony's XBrite technology.

Wow, ran out of space to run, so attacking like a dog I see. Typical behavior.

Bright screens ruin your eyesight. I prefer dim screens.

I think you're thinking about screens that are brighter than the ambient light, but you are wrong. Now, when a screen is so dim that the image cannot be discerned, there is a problem.

Would you rather have glasses as a result of eye strain?

my point exactly.

Who said I use a really dim screen? I just said, I prefer the dimmer ones over the super bright ones.

Now, when I say bright, I don't mean bright like a SureFire flashlight. I mean bright like a Sony XBrite technology LCD screen.