> When you were faced with a rebuttal, was the first thing that came into your mind?
This guy is making shit up so he isn't interested in a formal discussion
> Discuss the ideas presented
Which you did not do. I made a footnote and someone (you, presumably) jumped on it -- it wasn't even my point, so how about YOU discuss the ideas presented instead of attacking things that aren't important to the discussion.
> I'm saying they could make a lot more money if they priced new DVDs just a dollar or two higher than the current going rate for a used copy of the same movie.
Okay, I can see that, but wouldn't the price of used copies just decrease again to compensate? Maybe not on as much titles originally released as expensive, but as soon as the cheap ones became used copies, wouldn't the price of those be significantly less? Then they would have to drop the "new" price again to compete. However, I wouldn't mind a bit, paying $2 for a new DVD.:)
> if I would eat one and after swallowing all the fat would be vaporized somehow from the un-swallowed one,
No, the entangled particles would just disperse in a similar way as they do in your stomach. Unless you looked at the donut prior to eating it -- you didn't, did you? Otherwise, it may disappear suddenly, or at least change into a croissant.
> if we could get the Dutch freezing process down, we could: alter-freeze-read-alter-freeze-read
Doh, should have comprehended the whole thing before posting a joke -- now I have a serious question. Wouldn't "freezing" or unfreezing the particle change it & therefore its entangled mate rendering it unreadable?
> One idea I've heard is that they're actually just ONE photon, showing its face in two different points in spacetime simultaneously.
That's an interesting theory. So if all of the particles that make up my body have an entangled mate (I'm sure it isn't the case, but...), then there would essentially be another me (or at least another image of me at another place -- I would technically be both places) floating in space somewhere mimicing everything I do? Man, some pervert (or his 2nd image) could be out there somewhere watching me sleep. Creepy...
> If the producers weren't complete idiots, they would start producing more new content and selling it at a little above the market price of the used games.
Just one point: the producers make zero money from used game sales, so they have no incentive to base the price of new products on used ones.
Interesting. That suddenly brings up a slew of reasons this could be bad. Two of which are:
1) Kids (or just jerks) going around & punching holes in scores of packages just to ruin them before being purchased. To prevent this, there must be extra-durable packaging. Heck, its hard enough to open a new CD case as it is NOW.
2) Someone claims the copy they purchased yesterday did not work. There is no way (AFAICT) to tell whether it degraded prematurely or legitimately, meaning the store will either lose customers because they sell a faulty product & won't replace it, or they lose money by handing out replacements, as soon as it catches on. Granted, this may not be as big a deal since the replacement would only work for a few hours as well, so there's little incentive to do this unless you just want to watch it again (or, again, if you're a jerk & just want to screw the company).
> It was always explained to me (way back when I worked for a rental company) that the new release VHS were $70 - $120 merely to keep people from buying copies for the first few months
The way I understood it was that typically, the videos a rental store purchased at those high prices was because the tape was of a MUCH better quality -- rental videos are expected to be played once or twice a week for a few months to a year, whereas a home video would be watched maybe 20 times in a normal life cycle (possibly less, I'm guessing). Every time you watch a VHS tape, it gets stretched out ever-so-slightly. Over a hundred viewings, that slight stretching can become noticeable.
Bullshit argument, the wildlife can move -- and I mean they are able, I don't mean that in a negative "they should get the hell off MY land" way. In addition, there's the whole "there are more forests in the US today than there were 50 years ago" line.
Your average recycling consumer doesn't generally have a tonne of random steel in their garage... Now, some hicks may have old trucks on their lawn, but they aren't average.
> This would be more fair than how people who drive don't pay gas taxes that cover 100% of the cost of roads and are subsidized by other tax payers.
Completely separate, this is similar to saying it's unfair for people who always work to pay for 100% of the costs to support those on welfare. If those people ever ride in a car, take a cab, bus, or ride a bike on those streets, they are still taking advantage of them & should pay for their upkeep. This even ignores that they use products that had to be transported via those streets. Without those streets, you wouldn't have your computer.
> you missed the pilot episode where they proved that Penn and Teller were Bullshit!
Ad-Hominem, no facts to back it up. Surprise.
> who gets their news from Showtime and two good Las Vegas entertainers
Seriously though, who gets their news from the BBC? What the hell does it matter what channel it's on, as long as the argument is presented in a factual, accurate manner -- which, in this case, it is. Your only basis for deriding them seems to be that they disagree with you. I've seen many episodes, and most of them are very accurate & enlightening. I've seen some things that could be called into question, especially some methods on their "Supernatural" episode (although I agreed with their conclusion anyway).
If you're going to make an argument, make an argument. Don't just say "they're stupid" and giggle to yourself.
> scoured land you end up with after a major mining operation.
Immediately, yes. After about 3 years, what you end up with is flatter land with more trees on it than before the mine was started. Mining companies don't just desert the site after they're done -- they plant trees usually. Partially because the trees will hold the earth together better & prevent landslides & rain washing away the soil. Another reason is that they can then turn around and sell that land to a logging/paper company to recoup some of the land invastment (as if it hadn't already been paid for by the mined minerals).
> Besides, recycling is better for the environment. But keep it up with your little opinion there, and once you've figured out a cheaper way of living without the environment as it is, let me know.
You state that as if your side weren't simply an opinion as well. You don't have solid proof that recycling does anything beneficial at all for the environment, yet you repeat it as a fact. There is evidence that it's a Good Thing, but there is also evidence it does nothing at all.
The environment will not simply disappear, so there is no "living without the environment." All you are doing is promoting your own side in just as fallacious a manner.
> Please no more remarks about 'gaddam hippies'. > Hippies are smarter than you. > This is website that respects intelligence and creativity: > Hippies are respected around here.
1. I don't say that 2. No, they aren't 3. Hippies certainly can be creative, but their intelligence is about on-par with everyone else 4. HA! Yeah right
> Both figthing sides are terrorists and murderers.
I liked the way you put it -- that's "bang-on."
Except in extreme cases of personal self-defense (not preemptive military strikes), every person who kills another person is equal. Regardless of whether they do it in the name of some "greater cause" or just to watch him die, they do it to invoke fear and to deprive the other of their life.
> If you are of voting age and an american, all of the blood spilt at the hands of our government and military is on your hands.
So there is blood on my hands even though I vocalized my discontent with every single thing the government has done to cause the bloodshed?
Simply stating something does not make it true.
There is no blood on my hands, and probably none on yours, really. Just because a majority advocates something, it is not the responsibility of all, and certainly not the fault of the minority being overshadowed.
> a battle in the deliverance of the promised land from the worthless natives. Much like the US currently documents the [Native American Genocide*].
I don't see that at all. The way it was presented was that some Europeans came over & killed them & forced them back to take over their land. I've never, EVER read or seen any documentation, in textbooks or otherwise, claiming it was a good thing.
I hear people claiming that American textbooks are full of lies & gloss over bad things or promote them as good, but I rarely see any opinion presented in them (at least the ones I used). Sure, there wasn't as much detail in the grade school texts, and they didn't get into the scale of gore, but grade school is for basic info -- High school is where the details get filled in, and they were.
> wouldn't dropping sandbags cause it to gain altitude?
Yeah, sorta. A problem with atoms/molecules as small as Hydrogen is that they're pretty hard to keep herded in a paper bag. It constantly seeps out, meaning the sandbags had to drop off to keep it flying -- especially for the LONG flight across the Pacific. Supposedly it was calculated how much hydrogen to use & how many bags would have to drop off at what time so that it would start to come down when it reached/neared the U.S. border. By that time, all the sandbags were gone, so the remaining escaping Hydrogen caused the balloons to fall & deliver their payload.
It's funny, I learned this because my father owns a balloon store, and helium seeps out of latex balloons rather quickly (usually a matter of days). Hydrogen is smaller than helium.
Slashdot Mirror
> When you were faced with a rebuttal, was the first thing that came into your mind?
This guy is making shit up so he isn't interested in a formal discussion
> Discuss the ideas presented
Which you did not do. I made a footnote and someone (you, presumably) jumped on it -- it wasn't even my point, so how about YOU discuss the ideas presented instead of attacking things that aren't important to the discussion.
> I'm saying they could make a lot more money if they priced new DVDs just a dollar or two higher than the current going rate for a used copy of the same movie.
:)
Okay, I can see that, but wouldn't the price of used copies just decrease again to compensate? Maybe not on as much titles originally released as expensive, but as soon as the cheap ones became used copies, wouldn't the price of those be significantly less? Then they would have to drop the "new" price again to compete. However, I wouldn't mind a bit, paying $2 for a new DVD.
> Here's some overly simplistic logic
You are right, it IS overly simplistic. Because it is entirely WRONG, you moron.
Even if it was right, you are still getting upset because we are IMPROVING our past mistakes?
You'll whine about any fucking little thing you can, won't you. As long as you don't have to take any responsibility for proving anything yourself.
> Did you do everything in your power to stop the war?
Touche, good point. No, I didn't. So, I suppose, you are right.
> if I would eat one and after swallowing all the fat would be vaporized somehow from the un-swallowed one,
No, the entangled particles would just disperse in a similar way as they do in your stomach. Unless you looked at the donut prior to eating it -- you didn't, did you? Otherwise, it may disappear suddenly, or at least change into a croissant.
> if we could get the Dutch freezing process down, we could: alter-freeze-read-alter-freeze-read
Doh, should have comprehended the whole thing before posting a joke -- now I have a serious question. Wouldn't "freezing" or unfreezing the particle change it & therefore its entangled mate rendering it unreadable?
> One idea I've heard is that they're actually just ONE photon, showing its face in two different points in spacetime simultaneously.
That's an interesting theory. So if all of the particles that make up my body have an entangled mate (I'm sure it isn't the case, but...), then there would essentially be another me (or at least another image of me at another place -- I would technically be both places) floating in space somewhere mimicing everything I do? Man, some pervert (or his 2nd image) could be out there somewhere watching me sleep. Creepy...
Can you tell I never took quantum mechanics?
> If the producers weren't complete idiots, they would start producing more new content and selling it at a little above the market price of the used games.
Just one point: the producers make zero money from used game sales, so they have no incentive to base the price of new products on used ones.
> No returns
Interesting. That suddenly brings up a slew of reasons this could be bad. Two of which are:
1) Kids (or just jerks) going around & punching holes in scores of packages just to ruin them before being purchased. To prevent this, there must be extra-durable packaging. Heck, its hard enough to open a new CD case as it is NOW.
2) Someone claims the copy they purchased yesterday did not work. There is no way (AFAICT) to tell whether it degraded prematurely or legitimately, meaning the store will either lose customers because they sell a faulty product & won't replace it, or they lose money by handing out replacements, as soon as it catches on. Granted, this may not be as big a deal since the replacement would only work for a few hours as well, so there's little incentive to do this unless you just want to watch it again (or, again, if you're a jerk & just want to screw the company).
> It was always explained to me (way back when I worked for a rental company) that the new release VHS were $70 - $120 merely to keep people from buying copies for the first few months
The way I understood it was that typically, the videos a rental store purchased at those high prices was because the tape was of a MUCH better quality -- rental videos are expected to be played once or twice a week for a few months to a year, whereas a home video would be watched maybe 20 times in a normal life cycle (possibly less, I'm guessing). Every time you watch a VHS tape, it gets stretched out ever-so-slightly. Over a hundred viewings, that slight stretching can become noticeable.
> And the local wildlife I doomed
Bullshit argument, the wildlife can move -- and I mean they are able, I don't mean that in a negative "they should get the hell off MY land" way. In addition, there's the whole "there are more forests in the US today than there were 50 years ago" line.
> the scrap iron business
Your average recycling consumer doesn't generally have a tonne of random steel in their garage... Now, some hicks may have old trucks on their lawn, but they aren't average.
> This would be more fair than how people who drive don't pay gas taxes that cover 100% of the cost of roads and are subsidized by other tax payers.
Completely separate, this is similar to saying it's unfair for people who always work to pay for 100% of the costs to support those on welfare. If those people ever ride in a car, take a cab, bus, or ride a bike on those streets, they are still taking advantage of them & should pay for their upkeep. This even ignores that they use products that had to be transported via those streets. Without those streets, you wouldn't have your computer.
> you missed the pilot episode where they proved that Penn and Teller were Bullshit!
Ad-Hominem, no facts to back it up. Surprise.
> who gets their news from Showtime and two good Las Vegas entertainers
Seriously though, who gets their news from the BBC? What the hell does it matter what channel it's on, as long as the argument is presented in a factual, accurate manner -- which, in this case, it is. Your only basis for deriding them seems to be that they disagree with you. I've seen many episodes, and most of them are very accurate & enlightening. I've seen some things that could be called into question, especially some methods on their "Supernatural" episode (although I agreed with their conclusion anyway).
If you're going to make an argument, make an argument. Don't just say "they're stupid" and giggle to yourself.
> scoured land you end up with after a major mining operation.
Immediately, yes. After about 3 years, what you end up with is flatter land with more trees on it than before the mine was started. Mining companies don't just desert the site after they're done -- they plant trees usually. Partially because the trees will hold the earth together better & prevent landslides & rain washing away the soil. Another reason is that they can then turn around and sell that land to a logging/paper company to recoup some of the land invastment (as if it hadn't already been paid for by the mined minerals).
> Besides, recycling is better for the environment. But keep it up with your little opinion there, and once you've figured out a cheaper way of living without the environment as it is, let me know.
You state that as if your side weren't simply an opinion as well. You don't have solid proof that recycling does anything beneficial at all for the environment, yet you repeat it as a fact. There is evidence that it's a Good Thing, but there is also evidence it does nothing at all.
The environment will not simply disappear, so there is no "living without the environment." All you are doing is promoting your own side in just as fallacious a manner.
> Please no more remarks about 'gaddam hippies'.
> Hippies are smarter than you.
> This is website that respects intelligence and creativity:
> Hippies are respected around here.
1. I don't say that
2. No, they aren't
3. Hippies certainly can be creative, but their intelligence is about on-par with everyone else
4. HA! Yeah right
> > The garbage created by the USA
> We've already got this, it's called cleveland.
Mod up informative... I thought it was Detroit!
(that's a joke, mods...)
> When they start claiming to conform to government regulations, that is when you know they found a loophole.
:)
That's an awesome quote, kudos
> then we would find out what chemical they used and do it ourselves
Then the RIAA would make a law* making purchasing that chemical a terrorist act unless they had a permit given by the RIAA.
(* I know, I know... They don't make laws, they buy them.)
> Some of us cycle or walk to and from the local movie store.
"Some of us" doesn't change the world.
> Sounds exactly like september 11th to me!
Before calling troll, I'll assume you have some basis to this, as the way it was presented, it sounds NOTHING like 9/11.
> Both figthing sides are terrorists and murderers.
I liked the way you put it -- that's "bang-on."
Except in extreme cases of personal self-defense (not preemptive military strikes), every person who kills another person is equal. Regardless of whether they do it in the name of some "greater cause" or just to watch him die, they do it to invoke fear and to deprive the other of their life.
> If you are of voting age and an american, all of the blood spilt at the hands of our government and military is on your hands.
So there is blood on my hands even though I vocalized my discontent with every single thing the government has done to cause the bloodshed?
Simply stating something does not make it true.
There is no blood on my hands, and probably none on yours, really. Just because a majority advocates something, it is not the responsibility of all, and certainly not the fault of the minority being overshadowed.
> Eugenics quietly dropped out of sight after the Nazis' implementation of the idea pretty much offended/appalled everyone.
As an aside, Hitler said that his best Eugenic ideas came directly from the U.S. and he lauded them for it.
> a battle in the deliverance of the promised land from the worthless natives. Much like the US currently documents the [Native American Genocide*].
I don't see that at all. The way it was presented was that some Europeans came over & killed them & forced them back to take over their land. I've never, EVER read or seen any documentation, in textbooks or otherwise, claiming it was a good thing.
I hear people claiming that American textbooks are full of lies & gloss over bad things or promote them as good, but I rarely see any opinion presented in them (at least the ones I used). Sure, there wasn't as much detail in the grade school texts, and they didn't get into the scale of gore, but grade school is for basic info -- High school is where the details get filled in, and they were.
* (My words)
> wouldn't dropping sandbags cause it to gain altitude?
Yeah, sorta. A problem with atoms/molecules as small as Hydrogen is that they're pretty hard to keep herded in a paper bag. It constantly seeps out, meaning the sandbags had to drop off to keep it flying -- especially for the LONG flight across the Pacific. Supposedly it was calculated how much hydrogen to use & how many bags would have to drop off at what time so that it would start to come down when it reached/neared the U.S. border. By that time, all the sandbags were gone, so the remaining escaping Hydrogen caused the balloons to fall & deliver their payload.
It's funny, I learned this because my father owns a balloon store, and helium seeps out of latex balloons rather quickly (usually a matter of days). Hydrogen is smaller than helium.