Then when it's done forty five thousand people are out of jobs?

You can believe what you want, but even the staunchest liberal doesn't usually try and argue government is more efficent then charity.

Explain to me how giving money for nothing is better than giving money for something. Oh and I never said anything about government. I said instead of giving to charity, the rich people should instead band together and make a national railway system.

Oh, and it's not 45 thousand people out of jobs....it's 45 thousand newly skilled workers out of jobs, who are now qualified to do similar work. It's both school and employment.

3DS conference

Investors are hilarious. They go on the advice of people like Pachter, who was wrong so many times it makes me cry.

Yea but as pretentious as you attempt to be with that last statement, you still did not respond the most important question he stated "when it's done forty five thousand people are out of jobs?" Explain to me how you would solve that problem? Japan itself is not that big at all, so 45,000 people can finish that job fairly quick (not considering factors such as earthquakes in certain areas). Don't get me wrong plenty of rich people resort to philanthropy to feel better about themselves, and other times charitable organizations are used for devious purposes such as tax write offs. In the end there is nothing wrong with even a half hearted attempt at helping others as long as you are not pressured into doing so.

Only sales can change their attitude, this Christmas Nintendo has an amazing line up, especially for japan, with many sure multi million sellers...that should mean money, which is the language spoken by investors.

took you long enough to write that. While you did so, I had already editted my post to include the answer, which I did not, one minute after I posted the original.

Now, why would you say it's pretentious? Both employing and training unskilled people into skilled workers while at the same time benefitting the country is a typical method for improving the foundation of the populace. This is how places like India become tech powerhouses because so many of them got paid by the gov or privately to bring the entire country into the modern era. So while there is 45k people out of jobs, these are now skilled labourers who know how to work, know about tools and parts and can go back home and put those skills to use in different ways, and act as a space on a resume.

Take for example, Co-op university programs. Students actually PAY so that they can work somewhere under the wing of their university, guaranteeing them experience in various careers and jobs. And this is the opposite of what I proposed. I proposed paying them, whereas many are willing to pay instead.

Sure.  Giving money for nothing is better for quite a few reasons in this case

A) Number of people helped.  It can help more people since there are less costs.

B) It's much more immediaite.  What, do you think people can just throw down some money and build stuff in this country, you've got to get your initital plan agreed to by ALL the states involved and the federal level, THEN you need to pay for studies on every single part of the land that track is going to go through to make sure there are no negative enviromental things, you've got to pay for all kinds of permits, and all kinds  of other shit I can't even think of because I don't build high speed railways for a living.

What I can tell you is they started the work to build a highspeed rail from Los Vegas to Los Angeles like... 4-6 years ago, and still haven't broken ground. on.

Now imagine that off 10 states?  Yeesh.  I hope we'll be out this economic downturn by 2024 or whenever they'd be able to put shovels in the ground.  Maybe they'd be "lucky" and start just in time to counteract the next downturn.

C) Giving money "for free" would allow people to train for jobs in demand... and those jobs could be tailored to individual communties and what's needed within them.  Rather then training people for consturction jobs, right after the largest construction crunch in the nations history where there are tons of out of work construction workers.

D) Cost going foward.  A national high speed rail honestly probably wouldn't be that popular and would probably be a net negative when it comes to money.  If it's not going to be like the Subway or public bus systems and be privately run that means it's going to need more charity money.  Which means an annual cost that can no longer be spent on charity and spent subsizing a system that doesn't work.  AKA, wasting resources supporting things in which there is little demand and therefore little economic value.

E) Cost in the present.  The actual construction costs of the High speed rail from Cali to Vegas is expected to aproximitly 5 Billion.  That's quite a chunk a change even for a well coordinated group of rich people.  Then if they run overbudget... then what?

Those are just a few of the reasons why it'd be a bad idea.

50% of the DS audience is female.

Announce a pink 3DS for Christmas.

= Not catering to DS audience

Just for comparative purposes, Sony stock has dropped almost 30% in 2 months

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=SNE+Interactive#chart2:symbol=sne;range=3m;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined