Cognitive sciences go deeper than your simplistic example (not to take away from your otherwise perfectly acceptable premise). It is commonly accepted ("as previous research had suggested") that rote memorization and repitition don't really do a whole lot for cognition. Memorizing and analyzing are two very different skill sets indeed.
While I love your oft used cliche, I prefer, "focused practice makes perfect". I'm a semi-pro musician (I make money, but only as secondary income) and I can tell you practicing perfectly with no goal in sight is wasted practice.
Err...not exactly what I was trying to get across. I meant to infer that Mr. Paul is more intelligent than meager little me, yet holds an odd position on abortion that insults my intelligence. Poorly worded on my behalf. I would temper my comment to say that I'm surprised that a highly intelligent person like Mr. Paul would be so eager to erode certain civil liberties. It doesn't seem to jive with his libertarian slant. I guess you could say it does, because he would leave it up to the States (that's his official stance) but he is also on record on a personal level to do whatever he can to eliminate abortion.
First, are you seriously positing that there aren't any consumers who are avoiding HD because of DRM?...And if you think there aren't millions of consumers who are impacted by DRM (and the difficulty of ripping/copying HD) even if they don't know it by that name, then you are very much mistaken. So there we have it, DRM is one of the many valid reasons to avoid buying an HD player.
followed nicely by:
How can you seriously believe that DRM is the reason people are not buying HD?! This is not about DRM!
For the record, YOU entered both of these seemingly contradictory statements into slashdot lore. I, on the other hand, have only summarized what others have said (that DRM is a small factor) even though I'm personally not convinced (as evident by my previous posts). So again I have to ask, who is the one not following the thread? You don't even remember what you said in your OWN post, let alone understand that I'm the one who actually believes that DRM is pretty much a non-factor.
But to lift this conversation above your sophomoric challenges, I return to the debate at hand.
So we've boiled it down to your argument being that people SHOULD sit out the format war because they ARE sitting out the format war.
I haven't said people should do ANYTHING. What we have boiled it down to is that you have no idea what my argument is, and you don't read what I post. You refuse to accept my premise (let alone even successfully acknowledge what it is), yet you don't rebut it in any meaningful way. Am I being trolled? Am I communicating with an 8-year old? Are you, I don't know, I lousy college student practicing for debate club?
I'll try again. People ARE sitting out the format war for their own reasons, usually monetary. Here's a hint, the phrase "format war" has a lot to do with it. That's it. Stop inferring. You don't want them to sit out, it's dumb to sit out, it's easy just to buy one format now and the other later, the media is overhyping this blah, blah, blah, but the fact remains that people ARE sitting it out because of competing formats (fairly or unfairly).
Now before you respond, STOP. If you don't address specific instances with which you disagree (try the blockquote tags) and if you don't post an intelligent response associated with the blockquote, just don't bother, because you'll just be wasting everyone's time. I don't think anyone but the most sadistic people are still even following this thread.
Dude, I didn't refute anything you said becaue I don't disagree with you. It would help your cause greatly, however, to cite less extreme sources is all I'm saying.
Frankly Kurt Cobain's death didn't make a lot of difference to the world
It most certainly did! Now we have the Foo Fighters, arguably the best band of the modern generation (and one of the best ever). Kurt was keeping Dave Grohl down with his simplistic lyrics and three-chord reusable song formulas:-p
While your facts are not exactly unbiased themselves (even after following the links) I guess we could surmise the "fact" that anti-war people hardly ever get on air is because that is boring, given most people are now pretty firmly against the Iraq War. The fact they can find so many people who will still try to defned our actions there is newsworthy because it is sensationalist.
BBC News follows the Robbie Williams - Take That spat just as eagerly as Fox News reports on Britney's lack of underwear. Footballers (professional soccer players for my American friends) are quite possibly the pinnacle of fake celebrity news on the BBC, because the news is rarely about their sports achievements. Did you know Wayne Rooney is banging (fill-in-the-blank-super-model) or that So-and-So crashed his new (fill-in-the-blank-exotic-sports-car-and/or-SUV)? And don't get me started on the Original Gangstas of celebrity news; the Royal Family.
Olberman is an big-mouthed, washed up jock trying to sound smarter than he really is. The Worst-Person-in-the-World segment gets my vote for the Worst-News-Segment-Not-on-Fox-News Award.
As the article says, "the emotional center," or, more specifically, an insulated and insular group of people attempting to capture the attention of the audience.
Funny, I honestly read that as "an INSULTING and insular group of people attempting to capture the attention of the audience."
I wonder how many US citizens are equally aware given the predominance of coverage of 'Celebrity' has on US TV.
Woah! Easy there mate! I just moved back to the US (I'm American) from living in England for a few years, and this is kettle calling pot black! Not only does England follow US Celebrity religiously, they have their own Euro-celebrities as well. Paris Hilton + Girls Aloud + Robbie Williams and/or Take That + Beyonce > Paris Hilton + Beyonce.
Hell, I LEARNED my celebrity culture by living in England for only a couple of years, when I had every opportunity to for the previous 36 years in the States, but failed to do so.
I love these kind of books. Study bad design to understand good design! The best part is they actually offer a solution to a problem, instead of just griping about the problem.
This is the Designer's Bible of sorts. Although it predates most modern computer UI design elements, the concepts are still extremely valuable. As a matter of fact, I'd say that most bad UI design wouldn't exist if people understood the knowledge offered in this book. I'd suggest reading this as a foundation, then buying other books that are UI specific.
p.s. If you see The Psychology of Everday Things, don't be confused, as that is the original title of the book. It is the same book.
I eagerly away what you thing your strongest argument is. Of course, that might require you to understand what the topic is. Hint: it's not about DRM.
Frankly, I have no idea what you want to hear, since you haven't posted anything significant in your last two posts, other than personal and unsubstantiated attacks against me. Now, if you'd like to debate openly by, oh, I don't know, saying what it is precisely that you don't agree with, instead of just calling me names, I'd gladly oblige.
I'll take a stab at your question, though. My strongest argument is that people ARE sitting out the format war because they don't want to get burned by picking the wrong format AGAIN, (just like history has shown). Furthermore, it is unrealistic to think that the Average Joe would find it acceptable to just go out and buy a second player a few years down the road. Nobody wants two players and two different libraries mucking up their entertainment center. There are other issues, some pressing (like a lot of people just don't care about the quality gains or don't have HDTVs, players are too expensive) and some not so important (inability to defeat DRM, creating fair use copies), but the story is the competing formats, plain-and-simple. The tech-centric idea of just buying any and all formats that come out is unrealistic for MOST people.
Now if you could set aside your egocentric tech-centered world-view for one moment, perhaps you could understand that my assertions are based on real-world realities and aren't just made up facts.
Actually, I'm totally clueless about both. I'm a lousy designer that is dangerous with even the most simple of code. I just met one of the leading figures in the Ruby movement in America (through family) this weekend, however, and his insight was very interesting. His take is that there is too much push for Rails, without understanding Ruby, and that seems reckless.
Even had you expanded FUD to fear, uncertainty, and doubt, you'd still be using it incorrectly. This logical fallacy, and your ad hominem attacks lend nothing to your credibility. Now if you'd like to discuss what exactly makes me "truly a moron", "idiotic", "clueless" and not "even close" to being "factually or logically correct", I'm listening.
I'm confused. Is this an attempt to knock down Ruby or Rails (Two things I know next to nothing about)? Because if it is, this is the worst argument against anything I've ever read.
That's really nice for the 1% market share that uses Apple products have in corporate America, but some of us are living in the real world.
I'm sorry, I totally missed the point of what I'm sure was an otherwise informative, intelligent response. Oh yeah, and if "corporate America" is doing your designing, then yeah, PowerPoint IS pretty sweet! (You get what you deserve).
Here's a quick and easy summary of our entire disagreement:
You won't, won't, won't have to rebuy all your media.
But they WILL, WILL, WILL, rebuy all their media (even though they don't, don't, don't have to).
First of all, you are drawing your own conclusions about my posts, so again, I have to wonder who it is that's NOT reading. It is you who is descrediting the main reason people are sitting out the format war, because you want to believe in some higher cause (anti-DRM perhaps?). My posts are clear that MONEY is the main factor people are sitting it out, and for you to dismiss this for lack of evidence is kind of funny. Fear of buying an obsolete player contributes right back to this reason. The cost and fear of buying an obsolete player are far higher on the list of reasons not to buy and HD player right now than being able to rip the media. Do I have any stats to back that up? Uh, well, no (nor do you, oddly enough), because I doubt any such survey exists.
Yet you persist in repeating the same ignorant notions that he has clearly, clearly contradicted
READ: one slashdot geek's anti-DRM agenda jives nicely with another slashdot geeks anti-DRM agenda. Nice.
there is no doubt that many are not buying because of the FUD over the two formats.
You make the common slashdot mistake of throwing the term FUD around incorrectly. Fear-Uncertainty-Doubt is a marketing ploy used by companies to mislead consumers about the competitions' products. The only FUD in this instance would be if the Blu-Ray camp were making untruthful statements about the capabilities of HDDVD (or vice-versa) in order to confuse the consumer. Neither this article nor this thread have anything to do with FUD.
First, are you seriously positing that there aren't any consumers who are avoiding HD because of DRM?
Did I ever say such a thing? What I did say was that the small minority of tech geeks out have very little affect on the market right now. Ask the question, "are you holding out on buying HD because of DRM?" and the most common response you'll get is, "what's DRM?".
Second, you are confusing why people are not buying and whether it is a valid reason.
I'm not claiming your points are not valid reasons, only that they are insignificant reasons. Money matters most. I have challenged the claim that HD DVD players are cheap, and indeed DO run around $400, not the $100 as claimed. I offered realistic scenarios that point out additional costs to the consumer. I point to the long history of people buying and rebuying media and all you can say is, "no they don't, they go on ebay and buy obscure players". While it is true, consumers don't HAVE to rebuy their media, history shows us they DO. Consumers don't HAVE to buy two players, but history shows us they WILL.
This might shock you, but I think consumers holding out is STUPID too. I agree with the notion of pick one now (if you can afford it) and don't worry about the winner. What my post is trying to get through to you, though, is that MOST people don't think this way and buying anything over $100 is a big deal to them.
You claim people held out on DVDs when they most certainly didn't, because there wasn't a major competing format, with the small exception of the short lifespan of DiVX titles. Once DiVX bit the dust, the floodgates opened, further supporting my position that people sit out during format wars. Although this may not be any new "revelation", it doesn't make it any less true. People bought DVD players in droves, and then rebought all their favorite media to show off their new tech. And I thought you said people don't rebuy media?
As for #3, I'm not buying any standard DVDs because I don't want to rebuy them when an HD format finally wins. Thank you for allowing me to repeat this valid argument.
Slashdot Mirror
Cognitive sciences go deeper than your simplistic example (not to take away from your otherwise perfectly acceptable premise). It is commonly accepted ("as previous research had suggested") that rote memorization and repitition don't really do a whole lot for cognition. Memorizing and analyzing are two very different skill sets indeed.
While I love your oft used cliche, I prefer, "focused practice makes perfect". I'm a semi-pro musician (I make money, but only as secondary income) and I can tell you practicing perfectly with no goal in sight is wasted practice.
Err...not exactly what I was trying to get across. I meant to infer that Mr. Paul is more intelligent than meager little me, yet holds an odd position on abortion that insults my intelligence. Poorly worded on my behalf. I would temper my comment to say that I'm surprised that a highly intelligent person like Mr. Paul would be so eager to erode certain civil liberties. It doesn't seem to jive with his libertarian slant. I guess you could say it does, because he would leave it up to the States (that's his official stance) but he is also on record on a personal level to do whatever he can to eliminate abortion.
Agreed, but that doesn't make Mr. Paul's ideology any less offensive to semi-intelligent citizens like myself.
But to lift this conversation above your sophomoric challenges, I return to the debate at hand.
I haven't said people should do ANYTHING. What we have boiled it down to is that you have no idea what my argument is, and you don't read what I post. You refuse to accept my premise (let alone even successfully acknowledge what it is), yet you don't rebut it in any meaningful way. Am I being trolled? Am I communicating with an 8-year old? Are you, I don't know, I lousy college student practicing for debate club?I'll try again. People ARE sitting out the format war for their own reasons, usually monetary. Here's a hint, the phrase "format war" has a lot to do with it. That's it. Stop inferring. You don't want them to sit out, it's dumb to sit out, it's easy just to buy one format now and the other later, the media is overhyping this blah, blah, blah, but the fact remains that people ARE sitting it out because of competing formats (fairly or unfairly).
Now before you respond, STOP. If you don't address specific instances with which you disagree (try the blockquote tags) and if you don't post an intelligent response associated with the blockquote, just don't bother, because you'll just be wasting everyone's time. I don't think anyone but the most sadistic people are still even following this thread.
Dude, I didn't refute anything you said becaue I don't disagree with you. It would help your cause greatly, however, to cite less extreme sources is all I'm saying.
While your facts are not exactly unbiased themselves (even after following the links) I guess we could surmise the "fact" that anti-war people hardly ever get on air is because that is boring, given most people are now pretty firmly against the Iraq War. The fact they can find so many people who will still try to defned our actions there is newsworthy because it is sensationalist.
BBC News follows the Robbie Williams - Take That spat just as eagerly as Fox News reports on Britney's lack of underwear. Footballers (professional soccer players for my American friends) are quite possibly the pinnacle of fake celebrity news on the BBC, because the news is rarely about their sports achievements. Did you know Wayne Rooney is banging (fill-in-the-blank-super-model) or that So-and-So crashed his new (fill-in-the-blank-exotic-sports-car-and/or-SUV)? And don't get me started on the Original Gangstas of celebrity news; the Royal Family.
Olberman is an big-mouthed, washed up jock trying to sound smarter than he really is. The Worst-Person-in-the-World segment gets my vote for the Worst-News-Segment-Not-on-Fox-News Award.
The US has something similar, called PBS, right down to the slighly left of center bias (not that that is necessarily a bad thing).
Hell, I LEARNED my celebrity culture by living in England for only a couple of years, when I had every opportunity to for the previous 36 years in the States, but failed to do so.
I love these kind of books. Study bad design to understand good design! The best part is they actually offer a solution to a problem, instead of just griping about the problem.
p.s. If you see The Psychology of Everday Things, don't be confused, as that is the original title of the book. It is the same book.
I'll take a stab at your question, though. My strongest argument is that people ARE sitting out the format war because they don't want to get burned by picking the wrong format AGAIN, (just like history has shown). Furthermore, it is unrealistic to think that the Average Joe would find it acceptable to just go out and buy a second player a few years down the road. Nobody wants two players and two different libraries mucking up their entertainment center. There are other issues, some pressing (like a lot of people just don't care about the quality gains or don't have HDTVs, players are too expensive) and some not so important (inability to defeat DRM, creating fair use copies), but the story is the competing formats, plain-and-simple. The tech-centric idea of just buying any and all formats that come out is unrealistic for MOST people.
Now if you could set aside your egocentric tech-centered world-view for one moment, perhaps you could understand that my assertions are based on real-world realities and aren't just made up facts.
Actually, I'm totally clueless about both. I'm a lousy designer that is dangerous with even the most simple of code. I just met one of the leading figures in the Ruby movement in America (through family) this weekend, however, and his insight was very interesting. His take is that there is too much push for Rails, without understanding Ruby, and that seems reckless.
Don't sweat it. ColdSam is slowly building a history of arguing and name-calling while offering no logical rebuttals.
You can start here for FUD 101: http://linux-blog.org/index.php?/archives/30-What-is-FUD.html
Cheers.
I'm confused. Is this an attempt to knock down Ruby or Rails (Two things I know next to nothing about)? Because if it is, this is the worst argument against anything I've ever read.
But they WILL, WILL, WILL, rebuy all their media (even though they don't, don't, don't have to).
First of all, you are drawing your own conclusions about my posts, so again, I have to wonder who it is that's NOT reading. It is you who is descrediting the main reason people are sitting out the format war, because you want to believe in some higher cause (anti-DRM perhaps?). My posts are clear that MONEY is the main factor people are sitting it out, and for you to dismiss this for lack of evidence is kind of funny. Fear of buying an obsolete player contributes right back to this reason. The cost and fear of buying an obsolete player are far higher on the list of reasons not to buy and HD player right now than being able to rip the media. Do I have any stats to back that up? Uh, well, no (nor do you, oddly enough), because I doubt any such survey exists.
READ: one slashdot geek's anti-DRM agenda jives nicely with another slashdot geeks anti-DRM agenda. Nice.
You make the common slashdot mistake of throwing the term FUD around incorrectly. Fear-Uncertainty-Doubt is a marketing ploy used by companies to mislead consumers about the competitions' products. The only FUD in this instance would be if the Blu-Ray camp were making untruthful statements about the capabilities of HDDVD (or vice-versa) in order to confuse the consumer. Neither this article nor this thread have anything to do with FUD.
Did I ever say such a thing? What I did say was that the small minority of tech geeks out have very little affect on the market right now. Ask the question, "are you holding out on buying HD because of DRM?" and the most common response you'll get is, "what's DRM?".
I'm not claiming your points are not valid reasons, only that they are insignificant reasons. Money matters most. I have challenged the claim that HD DVD players are cheap, and indeed DO run around $400, not the $100 as claimed. I offered realistic scenarios that point out additional costs to the consumer. I point to the long history of people buying and rebuying media and all you can say is, "no they don't, they go on ebay and buy obscure players". While it is true, consumers don't HAVE to rebuy their media, history shows us they DO. Consumers don't HAVE to buy two players, but history shows us they WILL.
This might shock you, but I think consumers holding out is STUPID too. I agree with the notion of pick one now (if you can afford it) and don't worry about the winner. What my post is trying to get through to you, though, is that MOST people don't think this way and buying anything over $100 is a big deal to them.
You claim people held out on DVDs when they most certainly didn't, because there wasn't a major competing format, with the small exception of the short lifespan of DiVX titles. Once DiVX bit the dust, the floodgates opened, further supporting my position that people sit out during format wars. Although this may not be any new "revelation", it doesn't make it any less true. People bought DVD players in droves, and then rebought all their favorite media to show off their new tech. And I thought you said people don't rebuy media?
As for #3, I'm not buying any standard DVDs because I don't want to rebuy them when an HD format finally wins. Thank you for allowing me to repeat this valid argument.
As for the rest of
Am I the only one bothered by the high occurence of slashdotters dreaming about themselves naked? Ewwww.
In my dreams, I'm a badass mofo that kicks butt and never loses a fight. In reality, I've never been in a fight in my life.