What counts as moderation? I have no problem with my kids playing Warcraft from 8-5 in the Summer (when they aren't in school). That still leaves several day light hours to play football and ride bikes, and reading can be done in the evening as well. I'm 39, but young enough to admit I spent pretty much all day/every day in the 1980s playing Arcade Consoles, and Commodore 64 and Atari 2600 games. So the inferred generation gap is quickly disappearing. Soon enough we will all have been raised on video games.
I really hate the way bosses leave out pronouns, as to sound more busy. "Can't talk now... Need you to call..." How much time do they save leaving out such big words like, "I" and "you"? But yes, you are on point.
Since when does "News for Nerds" consist of nothing but a bunch of questions?
Is this the deal they had to make to get NBC back? Is this a deal breaker for Apple or will fans just ignore it to get their hands on the pretty new machines? Is this a new opportunity for Linux? And what happened to Jobs not liking DRM?
I guess if there were answers to the questions, this would be news. Otherwise it's just flamebait.
I usually play it on my three year old Hitachi 42" Plasma HD TV. I've also run the video to my 5-year old Yamaha receiver and it works from there too. Maybe it's more of a non-standard projector issue, which would really suck in education/corporate environments.
No Blu-ray on the new MacBooks. If HDCP is only for Blu-ray, then this really is a non-issue? I really don't know either. The article posted a screen shot of the guy not being able to use a projector, so I think it extends beyond Blu-ray.
Putting a reasonable restriction on copying media that is generally transparent to the user is hardly "screwing over your customers". What it does do, however, is open many more avenues of business because people like NBC will play along.
I just bought a new MacBook and the first thing I did was put my iTunes library from my white old MacBook onto it. All I had to do was authorize the new MacBook to play the songs I already owned. It's been two weeks now and I haven't encountered a file that won't play.
Maybe I'm heartless, but any crime/sickness/accident/whatever that affects.01% of the population is statistically insignificant. It doesn't mean it isn't important, it just means people are getting riled up out-of-proportion with the situation. The "outrage" doesn't match the "injustice". Comparing TSA checks to rape is a bit over-the-top.
Someone please let me lock the wireless to a network instead of scanning all 55 open networks in my building every single time it gets out of standby.
You can set up your list of wireless access points to only include ones you want to show up. It may take you a while to get rid of the 54 you don't want, but that doesn't mean it can't be done. I had about 10 in my list and I got rid of 9 of them. My MacBook spends zero time scanning for other networks.
I don't know a single consumer who is dissatisfied with their box because it lacks this or that feature.
That's because ignorance is bliss. You don't know what you are missing if you don't have it. This is the origin of most Mac Fanboyism (I myself am guilty from time-to-time). It's also the premise of the "Get a Mac" campaign. Get a Mac so you can find out what you are missing.
as so much of my software is not available on Mac and I'm not about to buy it all again anyway.
Not to beat a dead horse (hundreds of previous slashdot threads), but are you aware that most companies will side-upgrade (or whatever the term is) for free from PC to Mac or vice-versa? There's also the small detail that all Intel Macs can run Windows natively. This argument is truly at its most irrelevant now than it has ever been.
I've never found myself reaching for a mac as my tool of choice for a particular task.
That is a very interesting comment. I find my self reaching for my Mac for the most important task...the OS handling ALL my tasks seamlessly. I guess the PC can have particular tasks that it's better suited towards, but I view my computing experience for the total, not just the effectiveness of individual apps. I guess that might be why some of us are more Mac or PC oriented.
Windows has a giant market share that makes it the first priority for most program compatibility.
This argument hasn't been relative for the past 10 years or so. For a little while in the mid 90s I was sweating "program compatibility" (as a Mac user) but then the Internets took over.
Slashdot is one of the most polarising environments on the internet. The truth is usually somewhere between the hyperbole on both ends.
It's what drives me crazy and makes me want to run away, but at the same time, it's what keeps me coming back. Maybe a new mod scheme could be introduced that shows the post on a polarization scale.
Think of it this way: out of 100 people that ARE detained, 99 of them are completely innocent and have been needlessly inconvenienced... that's the problem, and it IS an unreasonable tradeoff.
I read the previous comment that of all travelers, 99% are needlessly inconenienced, when in reality, only 99% of the small number people pulled aside for suspicious behavior are. Yes, 99% of those people are inconvenienced, but they are such a small number overall that it is almost not relevant. Now you could argue that we are all inconvenienced just by showing up at the airport...no argument here. Bottom line is that it's not really a big deal since it hardly affects anyone, and even if it did affect you (slim chances) the worst that happens is you are slightly inconvenienced. As others ahve already argued, this seems to be a fair tradeoff. I personally don't care about petty criminals, but society's rules aren't determined by me:-(
I don't believe in "minor" drug offenses in public. Keep your drugs in your living room, if you must. If you are stupid enough to try and get drugs through an airport, then you deserve to be in that 1% that gets arrested.
I understand the general disdain for the "Security Theater", but this isn't that argument. EVERYONE has to go through airport security, even before 9/11, but that's not the issue. Everyone gets "probed" in your definition. What I'm saying is that the only a small number of people are extra-probed, and of that small number of suspiciously behaving people, 1% are arrested. That means FAR LESS than 1% of everyone going through security is even affected by this. If it finds a few petty criminals, so what. I didn't have to do anything above-and-beyond the usual security circus in that process, so I don't really care. The usual "security circus" is a problem, but not related to this issue.
I'm sure that the 99% of innocents who get Probed would also agree that the payoff is worth it, whatever the cost!
It isn't 1% of all airport travelers being arrested, it's a 1% arrest rate for those airport travelers detained for suspicious behavior (unless I read the summary incorrectly). Thus your 99% probing rate is erroneous because they aren't stopping every traveler who passes through security--only those who demonstrate "suspicious behavior". Yes, it is a slippery slope, no disagreement here. However, I agree with the parent on this...those 99% that were detained for suspicious behavior but not arrested are probably such a small sample of the overall number of passengers that it has practically no affect on the rest of us and the small amount of petty crime discovered through this process is probably worth the hassle. I don't think this is unreasonable tradeoff.
Let's start with you, shall we?
I'm not gonna fall for your bait either and respond with the "I have nothing to hide" comment because that'll just spin off into the usual slashdot pseudo-intellectual battle-of-my-logical-fallacy-is-better-than-your-strawman! love fest.
My father was a serious hobbyist photographer in the 70s and 80s (his father was a professional photographer) and even HE fell for the megapixels marketing mumbo-jumbo and bought a cruddy Sony dSLR based on the megapixel rating. It's an easy way to part otherwise well-meaning consumers from their cash.
Depth of field isn't a question of better or worse, you know, it's just different.
It most certainly is! If you want a shallow depth-of-field, but your cheap lens isn't capable of producing it, then that is a case of DOF being better or worse.
Slashdot Mirror
What counts as moderation? I have no problem with my kids playing Warcraft from 8-5 in the Summer (when they aren't in school). That still leaves several day light hours to play football and ride bikes, and reading can be done in the evening as well. I'm 39, but young enough to admit I spent pretty much all day/every day in the 1980s playing Arcade Consoles, and Commodore 64 and Atari 2600 games. So the inferred generation gap is quickly disappearing. Soon enough we will all have been raised on video games.
I really hate the way bosses leave out pronouns, as to sound more busy. "Can't talk now... Need you to call..." How much time do they save leaving out such big words like, "I" and "you"? But yes, you are on point.
What did you fix? You quoted him exactly. Or did I just hear a big whooooooshing noise?
You are a self-avowed Mac geek, but had to use a PC to play StarCraft? Was there that much time between the PC and Mac version releases?
Is this the deal they had to make to get NBC back? Is this a deal breaker for Apple or will fans just ignore it to get their hands on the pretty new machines? Is this a new opportunity for Linux? And what happened to Jobs not liking DRM?
I guess if there were answers to the questions, this would be news. Otherwise it's just flamebait.
I usually play it on my three year old Hitachi 42" Plasma HD TV. I've also run the video to my 5-year old Yamaha receiver and it works from there too. Maybe it's more of a non-standard projector issue, which would really suck in education/corporate environments.
No Blu-ray on the new MacBooks. If HDCP is only for Blu-ray, then this really is a non-issue? I really don't know either. The article posted a screen shot of the guy not being able to use a projector, so I think it extends beyond Blu-ray.
A buck oh five, to be exact.
I think you meant to say you hate the legal system.
Before I get flamed into oblivion, I meant to say all my movies and tv shows play, not just my songs.
I bet you already have and don't even know it.
Putting a reasonable restriction on copying media that is generally transparent to the user is hardly "screwing over your customers". What it does do, however, is open many more avenues of business because people like NBC will play along.
I just bought a new MacBook and the first thing I did was put my iTunes library from my white old MacBook onto it. All I had to do was authorize the new MacBook to play the songs I already owned. It's been two weeks now and I haven't encountered a file that won't play.
Maybe I'm heartless, but any crime/sickness/accident/whatever that affects .01% of the population is statistically insignificant. It doesn't mean it isn't important, it just means people are getting riled up out-of-proportion with the situation. The "outrage" doesn't match the "injustice". Comparing TSA checks to rape is a bit over-the-top.
Hey, at least we agree!
Someone please let me lock the wireless to a network instead of scanning all 55 open networks in my building every single time it gets out of standby.
You can set up your list of wireless access points to only include ones you want to show up. It may take you a while to get rid of the 54 you don't want, but that doesn't mean it can't be done. I had about 10 in my list and I got rid of 9 of them. My MacBook spends zero time scanning for other networks.
I don't know a single consumer who is dissatisfied with their box because it lacks this or that feature.
That's because ignorance is bliss. You don't know what you are missing if you don't have it. This is the origin of most Mac Fanboyism (I myself am guilty from time-to-time). It's also the premise of the "Get a Mac" campaign. Get a Mac so you can find out what you are missing.
as so much of my software is not available on Mac and I'm not about to buy it all again anyway.
Not to beat a dead horse (hundreds of previous slashdot threads), but are you aware that most companies will side-upgrade (or whatever the term is) for free from PC to Mac or vice-versa? There's also the small detail that all Intel Macs can run Windows natively. This argument is truly at its most irrelevant now than it has ever been.
I've never found myself reaching for a mac as my tool of choice for a particular task.
That is a very interesting comment. I find my self reaching for my Mac for the most important task...the OS handling ALL my tasks seamlessly. I guess the PC can have particular tasks that it's better suited towards, but I view my computing experience for the total, not just the effectiveness of individual apps. I guess that might be why some of us are more Mac or PC oriented.
Windows has a giant market share that makes it the first priority for most program compatibility.
This argument hasn't been relative for the past 10 years or so. For a little while in the mid 90s I was sweating "program compatibility" (as a Mac user) but then the Internets took over.
Slashdot is one of the most polarising environments on the internet. The truth is usually somewhere between the hyperbole on both ends.
It's what drives me crazy and makes me want to run away, but at the same time, it's what keeps me coming back. Maybe a new mod scheme could be introduced that shows the post on a polarization scale.
Think of it this way: out of 100 people that ARE detained, 99 of them are completely innocent and have been needlessly inconvenienced... that's the problem, and it IS an unreasonable tradeoff.
I read the previous comment that of all travelers, 99% are needlessly inconenienced, when in reality, only 99% of the small number people pulled aside for suspicious behavior are. Yes, 99% of those people are inconvenienced, but they are such a small number overall that it is almost not relevant. Now you could argue that we are all inconvenienced just by showing up at the airport...no argument here. Bottom line is that it's not really a big deal since it hardly affects anyone, and even if it did affect you (slim chances) the worst that happens is you are slightly inconvenienced. As others ahve already argued, this seems to be a fair tradeoff. I personally don't care about petty criminals, but society's rules aren't determined by me :-(
I don't believe in "minor" drug offenses in public. Keep your drugs in your living room, if you must. If you are stupid enough to try and get drugs through an airport, then you deserve to be in that 1% that gets arrested.
I understand the general disdain for the "Security Theater", but this isn't that argument. EVERYONE has to go through airport security, even before 9/11, but that's not the issue. Everyone gets "probed" in your definition. What I'm saying is that the only a small number of people are extra-probed, and of that small number of suspiciously behaving people, 1% are arrested. That means FAR LESS than 1% of everyone going through security is even affected by this. If it finds a few petty criminals, so what. I didn't have to do anything above-and-beyond the usual security circus in that process, so I don't really care. The usual "security circus" is a problem, but not related to this issue.
I'm sure that the 99% of innocents who get Probed would also agree that the payoff is worth it, whatever the cost!
It isn't 1% of all airport travelers being arrested, it's a 1% arrest rate for those airport travelers detained for suspicious behavior (unless I read the summary incorrectly). Thus your 99% probing rate is erroneous because they aren't stopping every traveler who passes through security--only those who demonstrate "suspicious behavior". Yes, it is a slippery slope, no disagreement here. However, I agree with the parent on this...those 99% that were detained for suspicious behavior but not arrested are probably such a small sample of the overall number of passengers that it has practically no affect on the rest of us and the small amount of petty crime discovered through this process is probably worth the hassle. I don't think this is unreasonable tradeoff.
Let's start with you, shall we?
I'm not gonna fall for your bait either and respond with the "I have nothing to hide" comment because that'll just spin off into the usual slashdot pseudo-intellectual battle-of-my-logical-fallacy-is-better-than-your-strawman! love fest.
My father was a serious hobbyist photographer in the 70s and 80s (his father was a professional photographer) and even HE fell for the megapixels marketing mumbo-jumbo and bought a cruddy Sony dSLR based on the megapixel rating. It's an easy way to part otherwise well-meaning consumers from their cash.
Depth of field isn't a question of better or worse, you know, it's just different.
It most certainly is! If you want a shallow depth-of-field, but your cheap lens isn't capable of producing it, then that is a case of DOF being better or worse.