Or history has shown that we have a terrible history of completely misunderstanding that which may be defined as 'God.' I'm surprised a critical thinker such as yourself is completely blinded by other possible explanations (which are still logical) for the exact same events.
Disclaimer: I'm not trying to prove or disprove God's existence or any other type of supernatural entity. Just going around tearing apart arguments given by both sides (though today, I'll admit, I haven't torn apart many pro-God arguments... haven't found one to do so yet. pro-God arguments on here are few and it just so happens the small portion of those I've read have clearly stated the existence of a supernatural entity is only a possibility... so, logically speaking, they're only stating possibilities.)
People who believe in God have always stated that they can't not understand God 100%. And as I've stated in another reply to you, no one understands science 100% either. You're being hypocritical about your beliefs. You're not holding yours up to the same standards as you expect from someone else.
Oh, so if you believe in something, you have to be able to define it to 100% accuracy and include it's entirety to 100%. Thats fine. String theory, people believe in it. But have they defined it to 100% accuracy or entirety? The beginning of the universe. Who's ever offered an explanation that's 100% accurate and complete. Evolution. Gravity. I can go on forever. Science *never* deals with 100% certainty. If you're own belief system can't stand up to it, why should you place that burden upon every other belief system?
Altruism may not be good for survival of the individual, but it is good for survival of the species. And Darwinism works at pretty much all levels -- if there were two groups of humanoids early on, and one was altruistic, while another wasn't, the altruistic group would've had a better chance of survival. Not if the non-altruistic one destroyed the altruistic group.
I observe some insanity, also. For all we know, that's what it was -- a random fluke of insanity that took them in a good direction.
Or maybe it was building for some time now, and they only just now admitted to it. You just provided the same kind of argument the other guy did. "Hey, maybe it was -insert cause-. I'm not going to provide any evidence other than that just stating its a possibility."
And I observe people like Charles Manson, who thought he was following where God was leading, too. Delusions don't necessarily have to have bad results -- and, conversely, just because something has a good result does not make it real. Considering we're defining events as 'good' or 'bad' by our own point of view, its entirely possible that those events can be considered completely different from a completely unbiased third-party removed from our reality. Or, seeing as how I'm pretty sure we can all agree that humans make mistakes, maybe manson just misunderstood what he was supposed to do. Oops. Still no reason to discount anything the previous poster put forth.
I highly recommend reading David Hume -- even just his Wikipedia page. A favorite quote of mine: "When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened."
It's part of a larger argument that the world is, essentially, natural, and not supernatural. Having never directly experienced anything supernatural myself, I have no reason to assume that the supernatural exists -- and, in fact, it seems much more likely that any record I have of the supernatural (including, nay, especially the Bible) is faulty than to assume that there is something so beyond the physical laws that we could never hope to explain it. You haven't had a supernatural experience, therefore its more likely the one's who have had the experience are being deceived. Why is it that they're the one's being deceived. Maybe you're the one deceived. The exact same argument can be applied against you.
"When anyone tells me, that they've never experienced the supernatural, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened."
You offer no real counter argument. I can't prove or disprove the existence of the supernatural. Rumors of its existence have existed since the early times of our species. I find it hard discount its existence just because you have found no natural evidence of the supernatural. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Its fine if you don't believe in it, but to try and prove those who disagree with you as being wrong is somewhat silly. I don't know if you're right or wrong, or for that matter, who is right or who is wrong. I do know that trying to claim one as 100% certain (which is silly from a scientific view, since science normally never claims 100% certainty of anything) is ridiculous unless you offer something much more substantial than anything I've ever seen posted on Slashdot. Let the believers believe. Lets the nonbelievers not believe. And let them not call each others names, unless warranted (which applies to both the religious zealots and the science zealots).
If the supernatural isn't any part of nature, how does the supernatural affect the natural world?
It can't unless it extends into reality.
If it extends into reality, it can be measured, hypothesized about and falsified. Thats a silly notion (the part i emphasized). You have two things, 'reality' and something outside of 'reality' (we'll define it as "natural" and "supernatural") You're making the case that the supernatural can exert no influence on the natural unless its part of the natural. That just doesn't make sense from any point of view. You're using rules and constraints on your reasoning that can't be applied outside of the natural. Those same rules and restraints may hold no bearing in the world of the supernatural or even the environment in which these two entities are interacting.
I'm not arguing against your basic views or for the other view. I'm just completely appalled by your argument. Its claiming the superiority of the logical, yet you seemed to forgotten to use logic at all in your argument. Please, provide a logical argument instead of one that is so easily dismantled.
They've also put two people who are close to each other, each in their own faraday cage, and would show one of them strong emotio-inducing images. strangely, it wasn't extremely high, but statistically speaking, the person in the other cage shared the same emotion more often than can be discerned to be "coincidental."
Moreover, proving the negative is a lot more difficult than just saying "we tried it, it didn't work." Obviously prayers don't always work (if you've seen the comedic movie "bruce almighty", you'd know what would happen if it did). I personally don't believe in prayer, but I'm not going to completely discount the possibility of its existence, especially not on such flimsy evidence such as you have provided. I think its unlikely, but the evidence provided is nowhere near disproving it.
Science is not equipped to deal with this subject matter. Using scientific experimentation is not really going to uncover anything about it.
I'm not sure of the numbers, but finally turning a profit one quarter does not mean you've finally made up all the money you lost all the past quarters from selling the systems at a loss. It just means they're no longer selling them at a loss. They had already dug a hole, but finally started to climb out instead of going deeper. It doesn't necessarily mean they are out of it though. They *could* be at this point, but that article says nothing the platform making up the billions it had already lost. Eventually they will and maybe they have at this point in time, but that article is a red herring. It just means they stopped losing money.
Umm... not everywhere. In my state (NJ), they need a reason to pull you over. Relatively recently there was a seat-belt law put into effect which many argue is a "pull you over cause i feel like it" law, but thats debatable. Moreover, if you don't have your license, you have a certain time frame to reproduce it in case you didn't have it when pulled over.
Warnings are there because users complain when they click a button and it breaks something because they didn't read instruction manuals on what that button does. The warnings are usually *not* general, but actually quite specific (at least when its a well written program). When people don't read instructions OR the warnings, they will break things. Dumbass users.
I'm curious as to your use of '[sic]'. Supposedly this was an overheard dialogue (therefore, verbal, not written). So, when you type it out, all spelling is done by you, the third party who heard the conversation. Misspellings could not occur due to the first-party since they didn't write or type anything. So, how in the world are you using [sic] after "lete?" I know this is a troll because its a foolish post, but I don't even understand the foolish use of '[sic]'. Is it a troll post for grammar nazis as well?
the image is huge. plus its two steps. also, the annotation part... i wasn't actually *sure* i was answering correctly. it looked like they were near water... boat was an option... didn't look like a boat... but nothing else really made sense... well, 'cept there was a guy in the picture and "man" was a choice as well... but i went with boat cause the guy didn't seem to be the focus. nonetheless, it required effort to reason it out. i don't want my captcha taking up more than 2 seconds, let alone like 30 seconds.
it's not a myth. at least not in new jersey. the definition of an *AMBER* light (dunno about the rest of the u.s., but its not referred to as a yellow light) means to stop if safe. strangely, but still understandably, red has the same definition. however, you can't get in trouble for running a yellow (screw calling it amber) light.
Yea, but by doing so you create more traffic and become a greater risk on the road. All those accidents that normally involve death *don't* involve two cars going 55... at least one of them was going much faster and being an asshole.
Being an asshole on the road causes more traffic, more death, more road rage, *but*, you're right, on the one hand you do get home 5-10 minutes earlier. I wonder how many people actually reason it through how retarded it is to drive like an asshole.
Just cause one can drive like that without getting into an accident (yet) doesn't make you a good driver (quite the opposite). The measurement of skill is not just how quickly you get there, but how safely (and no, that doesn't mean going under the speed limit is great driving cause safety decreases the farther you get from the speed limit... assuming you're in the right lane, if you go to the left, you have to go with the flow of traffic)
Not really. Normally if you keep going the same speed as the car in front of you, but keep a safe distance, the guy behind you is normally intelligent enough to see there's a car in front of you. its the car thats passing a whole bunch of cars on the right that will try to squeeze in there when he/she realizes they can't go any further at their speed. All in all, its the really slow people and the really impatient people that cause traffic. if you're not passing the cars in the lane to your right, you're too far to the left. if you're passing cars ON their right side, you're also causing problems because even if they wanted to move over, they won't cause now they have to worry about all the cars passing them. i hate passing on the right much more than i hate people who don't drive the right speed. the right side is the biggest blind spot on the car and while i'm not sure if there are any statistics out there, its probably a major cause of a lot of accidents. both speeders and slowpokes just need to learn how to drive.
And no, weaving in and out of traffic with 'efficiency' and not having any accidents does *NOT* mean you know how to drive. it means the exact opposite. If people actually drove according to the rules, there'd be less traffic and people would get where they need to go in a more timely and consistent fashion. I've actually done the test of speeding in the left lane going home from work a couple days and then did it a couple days just doing the speed limit. there was no significant difference. in light traffic, yes, there is a difference, but in rush hour traffic, there's really none.
if they offer a download speed, one should be able to get it. it's not "gaming" the system if they find a way to achieve that speed. its not like p2p causes them to download at rates higher than what they're paying for.
I had people yell almost the exact same crap at me back in 1995 when I suggested that CDs would also move to this model. Do you still think I was wrong about that too?
I already have 30 movies on the Creative Zen 30gb, in DVD quality - in addition to 200 audio books and thousands of songs. These are NOT huge numbers in terms of HD space available today.
Yea, too bad that a DVD quality movie is approximately 5% the size of an HD movie.
You're Creative Zen will *only* hold one HD movie and approximately 2500 songs. This proves *zilch*. I don't know what you're trying to say. Like I said, for me to put my blu-ray collection on disc (without extra content), i'd need a terabyte hard drive. That's a lot. And thats for a small collection compared to my DVD collection. If Blu-ray has been out for under 2 years, and I already have 35 movies (and that was with limited releases for awhile) imagine how much it will grow in the years to come ESPECIALLY since HD-DVD died. I would need multiple terabyte hard drives on my computer.
Last I checked, HD-DVD wasn't 'open' either. Being able to use it off-media does *not* mean its open.
Now that things have finalized, Sony is adding these features to their products, but not allowing others to do this. Fair uh? Glad Blu-Ray won uh? The biggest Movie Studio DRM whores of the century (Sony) and their DRMed up the ass Blu-Ray won. And they did it by selling it to OSS idiots as be 'anti-MS'. And it is the PS3 and SlashDot crowds that bought into it, despite it was against everything they stand for. LOL
It is not 'DRMed up the ass' as you so eloquently put (good to see you have no biases in your analysis here). It basically had one extra step (region encoding) than HD-DVD had. Blu-ray has been broken. DRM is meaningless for those of us on Slashdot. So I fail to see what you're complaining about.
Um, what you don't see to realize is that cable companies are ALREADY providing high capacity bandwidth. Do you think that QAM HDTV or MPEG4 or VC1 cable boxes shoving 1080i to people's TVs is any lighter on bandwidth? There are cable companies ready to shove over 90 Channels in HD in the next year.
One download stream for a user's data modem is going to be negligible compared to the HD content they are already going to be providing.
You seemed to ignore all my other points. If there wasn't a problem with bandwidth, I wonder why Comcast was throttling bandwidth... oh yea, CAUSE THEY ARE HAVING ISSUES WITH BANDWIDTH. and last I checked, Comcast is a cable company, so you're point isn't just useless, but its actually wrong.
Another thing you don't seem to get is the size of HD content.
I checked the sizes of torrents of a blu-ray disc. Ice Age (or Ice Age 2, can't recall), which was the first Blu-ray movie to appear on torrents was 19.6 gigs.
Next you are missing the point that ISPs in the US are behind the rest of the world. Go visit several countries in Europe, their cell phones are faster than our home connections, let alone most people have 20GB bandwidth to their homes in many countries as 'base'.
Too bad its kinda the US Studios that will decide what to do with their content.
(The Telcos were subsidized to provide Fiber to all homes, got their money and tax credits, and didn't ever do this in the United States, the government will eventually force this to happen if the US gets a competent administration.)
Keep dreaming. The current Telcos have been subsidized to do a lot of things they've never done. I'm sure they'll listen the next time around. Plus, I don't see a democratic OR republican administration pushing for this. Hell, they can't even agree on whether to keep the internet neutral (which would also have a HUGE effect on these downloads).
The last point you are missing is that HD online distribution is already happening. There are 1000s of HD movie and TV show downloads daily off of XBox Liv
What restrictions? Not being able to (legally) copy a +20gig hard drive to my file for just the movie content alone? I have no problem with that. HD Content is too large for hard-drive storage. I have under 50 blu-ray discs and that'd require at least 1 terabyte hard drive. My DVD collection is over 200. I'm sure both will grow in the future. I don't plan on storing it on a hard drive.
You all wish online hd content will be a big thing soon. It's not. the ISPs aren't going to look to kindly on that. They're already pondering going back to the pay per gigabyte system (its even being tested in texas). They've already said if online distribution becomes a big thing that they may actually purposely go back to that model just so they can get a cut of the action. There were talks that a standard def movie might cause $5 extra due to the ISP charges. HD Content distribution is *not* going to happen, nor is even standard distribution going to be much bigger than it already is. You people are complaining about something that a enormous majority of the world doesn't care about.
Since I'm a liar, I have no credibility. I think Blu-ray is a better investment as this point in time as opposed to HD-DVD. ut, according to you, its ridiculous for anyone to assume that to be a valid point. So, again, I'll repeat, *even* if somebody lied about a certain thing, it does not call into question their abilities to analyze something else.
Ok, you pointed out where you thought I was lying. I corrected it by saying thats not what I meant and it was misinterpreted (and yes, I took responsibility for the misinterpretation). Yet you still keep referring back to it. Just drop it. This isn't even the point we should be arguing about. Its somewhat childish for this to be the point you keep focusing on.
If you get stuff for cost, you shouldn't be talking about pricing then. I'm talking about the general populace, not people who have the special ability to get stuff at cost.
I'm done with this. You've offered nothing beyond saying "nuh uh, you're a liar." And thats probably all I can expect from here on in. Your last past didn't even involve the topic anymore. No more responses from me after this. Reply all you want though, as I'm sure your replying to the multiple others who have said the PS3 is arguably one of the best ideas for a blu-ray player (as opposed to the "hands-down, not a good idea" you seem to be pushing).
First of all, as logical fallacies go, even if someone lies and doesn't admit it, their credibility is not in question. Secondly, i did not lie. I already admitted that I was referring to the BDP-500 as the more expensive player (and admitted that I even forgot to write it, therefore I take responsibility for the misunderstanding). The BDP-300 does *not* work anywhere near as well as the PS3, therefore there's no point in comparing the two. One is a high-end piece of hardware, the other is a entry level piece of software. they just happen to be the same price. the ps3 is a steal for the price. its being sold at such low costs because sony wants to push its gaming platform. All this time, i've wondered by they bother selling more expensive units that perform on the same level as the ps3. I've found the answer. People like you are willing to pay extra so the thing doesn't play video games.
check the reviews on the BDP-300 and see what they say about upconversion and upgradability as compared to the ps3. depending where you read, the upconversion of normal dvds spans horrific to worse depending on where you read about it. the ps3 has loads more features. its unfair to try and put the BDP-300 on the same level as the ps3. the ps3 blows it out of the water. the BDP-500 which is more comparable (and more expensive and is the one i was referring to, though its my mistake that i didn't mention it) is still not as fully-featured as the ps3. the ps3 has everything both of those players have AND more (and thats not counting it being a gaming system). its a full media server thats capable of networking with PC networks. add on top of that that it *is* a gaming platform and its so much worth your money. Why spend the same price, $399, the going retail price for the inferior BDP-300, or even spend more on the still somewhat inferior (though, at least comparable) BDP-500, when you can have the PS3? Why spend more so it *can't* play games? Not wanting another gaming system is *not* a reason to not purchase a PS3. The PS3, on a whole, is still considered a better purchase and is rated better than those two players (as a blu-ray player). You've still not convinced me why i should spend the same amount for less, or spend more... for still less?
2) MS specifically SUPPORTED HD-DVD based on both jukebox archiving and online concepts that Sony rejected i bet the fact that microsoft wrote the HDi interface for HD-DVD had *nothing* to do with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Or history has shown that we have a terrible history of completely misunderstanding that which may be defined as 'God.' I'm surprised a critical thinker such as yourself is completely blinded by other possible explanations (which are still logical) for the exact same events.
Disclaimer: I'm not trying to prove or disprove God's existence or any other type of supernatural entity. Just going around tearing apart arguments given by both sides (though today, I'll admit, I haven't torn apart many pro-God arguments... haven't found one to do so yet. pro-God arguments on here are few and it just so happens the small portion of those I've read have clearly stated the existence of a supernatural entity is only a possibility... so, logically speaking, they're only stating possibilities.)
People who believe in God have always stated that they can't not understand God 100%. And as I've stated in another reply to you, no one understands science 100% either. You're being hypocritical about your beliefs. You're not holding yours up to the same standards as you expect from someone else.
Oh, so if you believe in something, you have to be able to define it to 100% accuracy and include it's entirety to 100%. Thats fine. String theory, people believe in it. But have they defined it to 100% accuracy or entirety? The beginning of the universe. Who's ever offered an explanation that's 100% accurate and complete. Evolution. Gravity. I can go on forever. Science *never* deals with 100% certainty. If you're own belief system can't stand up to it, why should you place that burden upon every other belief system?
You offer no real counter argument. I can't prove or disprove the existence of the supernatural. Rumors of its existence have existed since the early times of our species. I find it hard discount its existence just because you have found no natural evidence of the supernatural. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Its fine if you don't believe in it, but to try and prove those who disagree with you as being wrong is somewhat silly. I don't know if you're right or wrong, or for that matter, who is right or who is wrong. I do know that trying to claim one as 100% certain (which is silly from a scientific view, since science normally never claims 100% certainty of anything) is ridiculous unless you offer something much more substantial than anything I've ever seen posted on Slashdot. Let the believers believe. Lets the nonbelievers not believe. And let them not call each others names, unless warranted (which applies to both the religious zealots and the science zealots).
I'm not arguing against your basic views or for the other view. I'm just completely appalled by your argument. Its claiming the superiority of the logical, yet you seemed to forgotten to use logic at all in your argument. Please, provide a logical argument instead of one that is so easily dismantled.
They've also put two people who are close to each other, each in their own faraday cage, and would show one of them strong emotio-inducing images. strangely, it wasn't extremely high, but statistically speaking, the person in the other cage shared the same emotion more often than can be discerned to be "coincidental."
Moreover, proving the negative is a lot more difficult than just saying "we tried it, it didn't work." Obviously prayers don't always work (if you've seen the comedic movie "bruce almighty", you'd know what would happen if it did). I personally don't believe in prayer, but I'm not going to completely discount the possibility of its existence, especially not on such flimsy evidence such as you have provided. I think its unlikely, but the evidence provided is nowhere near disproving it.
Science is not equipped to deal with this subject matter. Using scientific experimentation is not really going to uncover anything about it.
I'm not sure of the numbers, but finally turning a profit one quarter does not mean you've finally made up all the money you lost all the past quarters from selling the systems at a loss. It just means they're no longer selling them at a loss. They had already dug a hole, but finally started to climb out instead of going deeper. It doesn't necessarily mean they are out of it though. They *could* be at this point, but that article says nothing the platform making up the billions it had already lost. Eventually they will and maybe they have at this point in time, but that article is a red herring. It just means they stopped losing money.
Umm... not everywhere. In my state (NJ), they need a reason to pull you over. Relatively recently there was a seat-belt law put into effect which many argue is a "pull you over cause i feel like it" law, but thats debatable. Moreover, if you don't have your license, you have a certain time frame to reproduce it in case you didn't have it when pulled over.
I believe right to privacy comes to mind...
Warnings are there because users complain when they click a button and it breaks something because they didn't read instruction manuals on what that button does. The warnings are usually *not* general, but actually quite specific (at least when its a well written program). When people don't read instructions OR the warnings, they will break things. Dumbass users.
I'm curious as to your use of '[sic]'.
Supposedly this was an overheard dialogue (therefore, verbal, not written). So, when you type it out, all spelling is done by you, the third party who heard the conversation. Misspellings could not occur due to the first-party since they didn't write or type anything. So, how in the world are you using [sic] after "lete?" I know this is a troll because its a foolish post, but I don't even understand the foolish use of '[sic]'. Is it a troll post for grammar nazis as well?
the image is huge. plus its two steps. also, the annotation part... i wasn't actually *sure* i was answering correctly. it looked like they were near water... boat was an option... didn't look like a boat... but nothing else really made sense... well, 'cept there was a guy in the picture and "man" was a choice as well... but i went with boat cause the guy didn't seem to be the focus. nonetheless, it required effort to reason it out. i don't want my captcha taking up more than 2 seconds, let alone like 30 seconds.
I think they were closed-source. Unless you can point me to their wiki-terror page and I can help collaborate on their next scheme.
it's not a myth. at least not in new jersey. the definition of an *AMBER* light (dunno about the rest of the u.s., but its not referred to as a yellow light) means to stop if safe. strangely, but still understandably, red has the same definition. however, you can't get in trouble for running a yellow (screw calling it amber) light.
Yea, but by doing so you create more traffic and become a greater risk on the road. All those accidents that normally involve death *don't* involve two cars going 55... at least one of them was going much faster and being an asshole.
Being an asshole on the road causes more traffic, more death, more road rage, *but*, you're right, on the one hand you do get home 5-10 minutes earlier. I wonder how many people actually reason it through how retarded it is to drive like an asshole.
Just cause one can drive like that without getting into an accident (yet) doesn't make you a good driver (quite the opposite). The measurement of skill is not just how quickly you get there, but how safely (and no, that doesn't mean going under the speed limit is great driving cause safety decreases the farther you get from the speed limit... assuming you're in the right lane, if you go to the left, you have to go with the flow of traffic)
Not really. Normally if you keep going the same speed as the car in front of you, but keep a safe distance, the guy behind you is normally intelligent enough to see there's a car in front of you. its the car thats passing a whole bunch of cars on the right that will try to squeeze in there when he/she realizes they can't go any further at their speed. All in all, its the really slow people and the really impatient people that cause traffic. if you're not passing the cars in the lane to your right, you're too far to the left. if you're passing cars ON their right side, you're also causing problems because even if they wanted to move over, they won't cause now they have to worry about all the cars passing them. i hate passing on the right much more than i hate people who don't drive the right speed. the right side is the biggest blind spot on the car and while i'm not sure if there are any statistics out there, its probably a major cause of a lot of accidents. both speeders and slowpokes just need to learn how to drive.
And no, weaving in and out of traffic with 'efficiency' and not having any accidents does *NOT* mean you know how to drive. it means the exact opposite. If people actually drove according to the rules, there'd be less traffic and people would get where they need to go in a more timely and consistent fashion. I've actually done the test of speeding in the left lane going home from work a couple days and then did it a couple days just doing the speed limit. there was no significant difference. in light traffic, yes, there is a difference, but in rush hour traffic, there's really none.
if they offer a download speed, one should be able to get it. it's not "gaming" the system if they find a way to achieve that speed. its not like p2p causes them to download at rates higher than what they're paying for.
I had people yell almost the exact same crap at me back in 1995 when I suggested that CDs would also move to this model. Do you still think I was wrong about that too? I already have 30 movies on the Creative Zen 30gb, in DVD quality - in addition to 200 audio books and thousands of songs. These are NOT huge numbers in terms of HD space available today.
Yea, too bad that a DVD quality movie is approximately 5% the size of an HD movie. You're Creative Zen will *only* hold one HD movie and approximately 2500 songs. This proves *zilch*. I don't know what you're trying to say. Like I said, for me to put my blu-ray collection on disc (without extra content), i'd need a terabyte hard drive. That's a lot. And thats for a small collection compared to my DVD collection. If Blu-ray has been out for under 2 years, and I already have 35 movies (and that was with limited releases for awhile) imagine how much it will grow in the years to come ESPECIALLY since HD-DVD died. I would need multiple terabyte hard drives on my computer. Last I checked, HD-DVD wasn't 'open' either. Being able to use it off-media does *not* mean its open.
Now that things have finalized, Sony is adding these features to their products, but not allowing others to do this. Fair uh? Glad Blu-Ray won uh? The biggest Movie Studio DRM whores of the century (Sony) and their DRMed up the ass Blu-Ray won. And they did it by selling it to OSS idiots as be 'anti-MS'. And it is the PS3 and SlashDot crowds that bought into it, despite it was against everything they stand for. LOL
It is not 'DRMed up the ass' as you so eloquently put (good to see you have no biases in your analysis here). It basically had one extra step (region encoding) than HD-DVD had. Blu-ray has been broken. DRM is meaningless for those of us on Slashdot. So I fail to see what you're complaining about.
Um, what you don't see to realize is that cable companies are ALREADY providing high capacity bandwidth. Do you think that QAM HDTV or MPEG4 or VC1 cable boxes shoving 1080i to people's TVs is any lighter on bandwidth? There are cable companies ready to shove over 90 Channels in HD in the next year. One download stream for a user's data modem is going to be negligible compared to the HD content they are already going to be providing.
You seemed to ignore all my other points. If there wasn't a problem with bandwidth, I wonder why Comcast was throttling bandwidth... oh yea, CAUSE THEY ARE HAVING ISSUES WITH BANDWIDTH. and last I checked, Comcast is a cable company, so you're point isn't just useless, but its actually wrong.
Another thing you don't seem to get is the size of HD content.
I checked the sizes of torrents of a blu-ray disc. Ice Age (or Ice Age 2, can't recall), which was the first Blu-ray movie to appear on torrents was 19.6 gigs.
Next you are missing the point that ISPs in the US are behind the rest of the world. Go visit several countries in Europe, their cell phones are faster than our home connections, let alone most people have 20GB bandwidth to their homes in many countries as 'base'.
Too bad its kinda the US Studios that will decide what to do with their content.
(The Telcos were subsidized to provide Fiber to all homes, got their money and tax credits, and didn't ever do this in the United States, the government will eventually force this to happen if the US gets a competent administration.)
Keep dreaming. The current Telcos have been subsidized to do a lot of things they've never done. I'm sure they'll listen the next time around. Plus, I don't see a democratic OR republican administration pushing for this. Hell, they can't even agree on whether to keep the internet neutral (which would also have a HUGE effect on these downloads).
The last point you are missing is that HD online distribution is already happening. There are 1000s of HD movie and TV show downloads daily off of XBox Liv
What restrictions? Not being able to (legally) copy a +20gig hard drive to my file for just the movie content alone? I have no problem with that. HD Content is too large for hard-drive storage. I have under 50 blu-ray discs and that'd require at least 1 terabyte hard drive. My DVD collection is over 200. I'm sure both will grow in the future. I don't plan on storing it on a hard drive.
You all wish online hd content will be a big thing soon. It's not. the ISPs aren't going to look to kindly on that. They're already pondering going back to the pay per gigabyte system (its even being tested in texas). They've already said if online distribution becomes a big thing that they may actually purposely go back to that model just so they can get a cut of the action. There were talks that a standard def movie might cause $5 extra due to the ISP charges. HD Content distribution is *not* going to happen, nor is even standard distribution going to be much bigger than it already is. You people are complaining about something that a enormous majority of the world doesn't care about.
Since I'm a liar, I have no credibility. I think Blu-ray is a better investment as this point in time as opposed to HD-DVD. ut, according to you, its ridiculous for anyone to assume that to be a valid point. So, again, I'll repeat, *even* if somebody lied about a certain thing, it does not call into question their abilities to analyze something else.
Ok, you pointed out where you thought I was lying. I corrected it by saying thats not what I meant and it was misinterpreted (and yes, I took responsibility for the misinterpretation). Yet you still keep referring back to it. Just drop it. This isn't even the point we should be arguing about. Its somewhat childish for this to be the point you keep focusing on.
If you get stuff for cost, you shouldn't be talking about pricing then. I'm talking about the general populace, not people who have the special ability to get stuff at cost.
I'm done with this. You've offered nothing beyond saying "nuh uh, you're a liar." And thats probably all I can expect from here on in. Your last past didn't even involve the topic anymore. No more responses from me after this. Reply all you want though, as I'm sure your replying to the multiple others who have said the PS3 is arguably one of the best ideas for a blu-ray player (as opposed to the "hands-down, not a good idea" you seem to be pushing).
First of all, as logical fallacies go, even if someone lies and doesn't admit it, their credibility is not in question. Secondly, i did not lie. I already admitted that I was referring to the BDP-500 as the more expensive player (and admitted that I even forgot to write it, therefore I take responsibility for the misunderstanding). The BDP-300 does *not* work anywhere near as well as the PS3, therefore there's no point in comparing the two. One is a high-end piece of hardware, the other is a entry level piece of software. they just happen to be the same price. the ps3 is a steal for the price. its being sold at such low costs because sony wants to push its gaming platform. All this time, i've wondered by they bother selling more expensive units that perform on the same level as the ps3. I've found the answer. People like you are willing to pay extra so the thing doesn't play video games.
That mytopia looks a lot like myopia which means "short-sightedness"? Anyone find this fitting?
check the reviews on the BDP-300 and see what they say about upconversion and upgradability as compared to the ps3. depending where you read, the upconversion of normal dvds spans horrific to worse depending on where you read about it. the ps3 has loads more features. its unfair to try and put the BDP-300 on the same level as the ps3. the ps3 blows it out of the water. the BDP-500 which is more comparable (and more expensive and is the one i was referring to, though its my mistake that i didn't mention it) is still not as fully-featured as the ps3. the ps3 has everything both of those players have AND more (and thats not counting it being a gaming system). its a full media server thats capable of networking with PC networks. add on top of that that it *is* a gaming platform and its so much worth your money. Why spend the same price, $399, the going retail price for the inferior BDP-300, or even spend more on the still somewhat inferior (though, at least comparable) BDP-500, when you can have the PS3? Why spend more so it *can't* play games? Not wanting another gaming system is *not* a reason to not purchase a PS3. The PS3, on a whole, is still considered a better purchase and is rated better than those two players (as a blu-ray player). You've still not convinced me why i should spend the same amount for less, or spend more... for still less?