I don't think anyone ever thought that there was a problem with punch cards, either. I mean, you punch a card, how hard is that? The problem is when you've got an election where the difference is less than 0.5%. At that point, everyone goes totally nuts. Obviously it's easy to tell the difference between a ballot with an X, and a blank ballot. But what about a ballot with a little dash, or even a dot? Do you count that? What about if there are two boxes marked, but they are marked differently (maybe one looks like it's been scratched out)? What if the pen is out of ink, so you can see where the pen was pressed, but there's no actual ink mark? Those are the pen equivalents of pregnant or hanging chads. It won't be a problem in most elections, but when you have a frenzy like in Florida, with reps from both sides accusing the others of cheating, those distinctions are going to become huge controversies.
Seinfeld reference. There's an episode when a reporter thinks that Seinfeld is gay, and throughout the episode, whenever anyone says anything about being gay, it's always followed with "...not that there's anything wrong with that."
Well, actually that's not entirely true. Seeing the third dimension is not just the fact that you can see different images out of each eye. One major difference is that if you move your head, you should be able to see objects from a different perspective (for example, step to the right and objects which are close should shift relative to objects which are far away). So someone who is blind in one eye can still quite definately tell the difference between 3d and 2d, and to the best of my knowledge there are no 3d systems which incorporate this aspect of three dimensionality. This is one reason that 3d movies still look fundamentally fake, and indeed one of the reasons it fell out of favor was that you had to keep all your shots framed very carefully to keep this limitation from becoming obvious to the audience.
In general though, I agree that it seems pretty silly for someone to complain that he won't be able to use this "3d" display if he is blind in one eye.
This is, without a doubt, the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. Written communication was only ever "free" if you had a servant to go deliver the letter for you. Now that we don't have servants, you have to pay the post office instead, or of course, you could always drop the letter off yourself.
I admit that I don't know anything about the history of the telegraph, but the telephone was never cheap. In fact, in its infancy, the telephone was so expensive that some thought it would only be useful as a way of letting someone know that he had received a telegram!
Regarding the Internet, you say that "soon people were paying for the priviledge?" As opposed to what? When in the history of the Internet was one able to access the Internet without either paying an ISP, or getting access through the university/one's place of work.
I notice you sidestepped cell phones. What, you don't have some made up argument about how cell phone service was free at first too?
Your entire thesis is wrong, it is the opposite of correct. Communication does not get more expensive, it gets cheaper! The price of a long distance phone call has dropped from more than a dollar per minute to less than $0.05! The price of bandwidth has been falling steadily, and is likely to fall further. Given that VoIP takes a very small amount of bandwidth compared to many other activities (P2P, for example), it is unlikely that it will ever involve any additional fee above and beyond the price already being paid for broadband.
Okay, you're right, the private sector has the potential to bring about monopolies such as Microsoft. Let's look a little closer at the birth of the computing industry, though. The alternative was the USSR, where investment was controlled by the state. They never understood the potential of computers, and as a result, they were left in the dust. Sure, we ended up with IBM, then replaced by MS and Intel, but that's a damn sight better than the crap Russia got.
Probably the parachutes too though, right? Parachutes plus nosecone sounds like it could be getting close to 10%. Oh well, I'm sure they know what they're doing, and are keeping it under 10%
For the most part, it's obvious we'll just have to agree to disagree:) However, I'll just make two final points.
First, heavy weightlifting will lower one's resistance to drugs. In women, it can actually cause more serious problems, such as delaying the onset of puberty in female gymnasts. Excess protein or creatine may help to build muscle, but will cause kidney damage. It's just a matter of degree, it's not AS bad as steroids, and anyway it would be impossible to detect (and who would draw the line at where one is consuming too much protein?).
Second, I think you are very wrong about hard work being unable to compensate for natural talent. Genetics don't count for jack if you're not willing to work hard. My family actaually has pretty good genes for running, my father used to run marathons, and when I'm in shape, I can sprint really goddamn fast. But none of us have ever competed, because we're not that serious about running. We may very well have the natural potential to be great, or maybe not, we've never tested it. But the one thing I can say for certain is that whether or not we've got good genes for running, ANYONE who runs daily could probably outrun me because they work harder. This is true to a lesser degree in the Olympics too. If someone is naturally the most talented, but doesn't train as hard (or trains incorrectly), he still will probably lose.
One last little "food for thought" bit: what if the genetic manipulation occurs before birth. First consider the case of outright engineering, using retroviruses or whatever to insert new genes at conception. Next consider the case of Gattaca, where a large number of eggs are fertilized by a large number of sperm, and only those fertilized eggs with the best combinations of genes are put into the uterus. Would you exclude case 1, both cases, or allow both?
I agree a line needs to be drawn, but I don't want to see a situation develop where any interaction with modern medicine has the potential to disqualify olympic athletes, nor do I want to see a situation where the average individual is comparable to an olympic athlete because he has performance enhancers available to him that are not available to the olympian. I know we've spent too long discussing this, so if you respond I'l read your response, but I'm not going to talk about it anymore:)
I think that labeling soap as "deoderant" soap may actually be regulated by the FDA. Suffice it to say that all the ones I've ever seen contain one or more of: alchohol, ether, or triclosan. All three kill bacteria. Triclosan is also used in some anti-acne soaps. The deoderant soap I use has no scent at all.
Never seen, much less used, Dr. Bronners Magic Soap. My skin dries out pretty easily, so probably not my kind of thing.
Steroids don't mess with your genes either. Where do you draw the line between "nutrition" and "drugs?" You talk a lot about "the best" athletes. What is the best, though? Clearly we're not just looking for people with the best natural ability, or else we would forbid them to exercise or practice for fear of allowing hard work to compensate for genetics. So willingness to work hard and make sacrifices is apparently something we factor into the decision of what makes someone the best. So how does that make chemical or genetic manipulations wrong? Unlike the dog training mentioned before, the dogs cannot decide that they want their coats ironed, or whatever you were saying. People engage in all activities of their own volition, and therefore whatever they do to gain an edge is a choice they have made, not something imposed upon them from the outside.
yes, deodorant and deodorant/anti-perspirant are two separate products, check the aisle at the drugstore
Of course, you are correct. However, most deoderants are also anti-perspirants. Plain deoderant is a pretty small niche product, especially given that it's exactly the same as deoderant soap, except with a talc base rather than a soap base.
How is refined protein powder or creatine natural? How is lifting machine weights natural? How is shaving off one's body hair to improve swimming speeds natural? Most of the improvements in methods are quite distinctly counter to nature. Frankly, the whole idea of some things being "natural," and some being "unnatural" is kind of ridiculous, I think. Either we're animals, in which case everything we do is natural, or we're not, in which case nothing is.
I'm not going to address the dog issue except to say that we're not trying to breed better people. So, while it might be preferrable to set stricter rules on dog shows in order to encourage a superior gene pool for that breed, the same argument does not apply for human athletes.
1) Avoid anti-bacterial soaps, they leave behind only the most ruthless of bacteria. This will cause your BO to come back with knockout power once they start breeding.
You know, deoderant contains the same bacteria killing ingredients as deoderant soap. Deoderant also contains aluminum salts that essentially plug up the pores to keep you from sweating. As far as bacteria killing goes though, deoderant and deoderant soap do the same thing, so if you think that using ether, alchohol, and/or triclosan to kill bacteria in the armpits is bad, you should stop using deoderant as well.
4) Use whitening toothpaste and listerene.
Whitening toothpastes use acid to whiten. So long as your teeth are not visibly yellowish, I don't think they need to be gleaming white. Frankly, that's just unnatural. Also, depending on how many times per day you engage in this routine, you may be overusing your listerine. If you use it more than about twice per day, you can actually end up destroying the enzymes in your saliva, and overdrying your mouth (because of the alchohol), which allows thrush, a whitish fungus, to grow on your tongue.
6) Avoid colognes and perfumes. These are out-dated leftovers from a time before we had the resources to effectively bathe daily.
Not really, some of them just smell nice, in fact my girlfriend picked two colognes out for me. I agree with your point on using sparingly. One to two sprays on my torso is usually about right, with a shirt over that the scent is fairly mild, but lasts more or less the whole day because the shirt holds it in. The way girls apply perfume, to the wrists and neck, is generally wrong, because it rubs off and doesn't last long.
$7? Here in San Francisco, movies have shot up to the absurd price of $9.50!
Regarding the subject at hand though, I often see those movies with "Property of Warner Bros." appearing at the bottom every so often. Is that what we're talking about? If so, why not simply vary exactly when that message appears? No one would even know, at least at first, and the only way to keep from being caught would be to put a black box over that area for the entire movie, which would make the copy much lower quality.
Part of the appeal is that you know that the athletes are, to some extent, comparable to athletes from centuries ago (though with better nutrition and training methods).
You underrate improvements in nutrition and training methods, not to mention equipment (if nothing else, most sports at least include shoes as equipment, and there have been tremendous advances in shoe materials). How many records stand for more than a decade or two? Have a look at some swimming records. I see no one in the top 25 of the half dozen or so that I clicked on dating back earlier than 1970. Moreover, revolutions in technique, such as the switch to the "flop" high jump technique, totally revolutionize some sports. For that matter, women have only been competing in many sports for 50 years or less, and so are utterly uncomparable to any female athletes prior in histor.
Also, I dispute your claim that no one cares about steroids in bodybuilding. Indeed, that is why there are now natural competitions, because people realize that it is sick to have a sport where the only way to compete is to completely fuck up your body's hormonal balance (now how long will it take people to realize that the same is true of women's gymnastics?).
I agree with your point about rules. Yes, the rules should be clearly defined, and people should have to compete within those rules. That didn't stop the government from changing the rules for professional golf to allow handicapped golfers to use carts, but that's another issue for another time. The difference here, I think, is that you've still got a person, you're not adding in new equipment, you're just choosing not to regulate what methods this person uses to train.
Overall, I think that a common sense approach has to be taken. If gene therapy is experimental and error prone, it should not be allowed. If it is commonplace, and ordinary citizens use it as part of regular medical practice, I think it's ridiculous to restrict athletes. Likewise, I think it's ridiculous that athletes are being flagged as "drug abusers" for taking over the counter headache medicines.
But I think even if no health risks are involved it isn't fair to the other athletes if they end up having to go through gene therapy just to keep up with the competition
Why isn't it fair? Is it any more fair that they have to spend 60 hours a week in the gym/practicing? Really, this is basically just like an improvement in equipment, in nutrition, or in training methods. Gene therapy will not replace hard work, it will simply make that hard work more productive. If everyone does it, the bar is simply raised higher. It won't be any easier to be a world champion, it will simply mean that the world champions of tomorrow are far greater than the world champions of today (who, in turn, are superior to the world champions of yesterday, look at how frequently records are broken).
I've got to agree with the other people who say "look at the numbers." It's not our fault if your money gets you in the habit of looking at colors instead. As for it looking "odd," that's the entire goddamn point! We're used to it, so your money looks odd to us, and we don't want to switch (after all, we're the ones who have to look at it every day).
One thing that is funny, though: dimes do not state their denomination. Nickels and pennies say "five cents" and "one cent" respectively, and quarters are, of course, a quarter of a dollar. But a dime just says "one dime." How useless is that?
The average life expectancy of a bill is actually shorter than the average length of time it takes for a bill to reach public circulation. Most bills never even make it to the public's hands before wearing out. If you're in London, you may not have any American currency on you, so I'll pull out my wallet and have a look at the dates: 2001, 2001, 2001, 1999, 2001, 1996, 1999, 1999. Only one bill is older than 4 years, so in a few years when the old bills have worn out, it will be nearly impossible for counterfitters to introduce large numbers of old bills without drawing attention to themselves. Plus, if only 10% of the money in circulations is an old-style bill, stores will subject it to more scrutiny, making it harder to create a convincing counterfit.
Are people simply going to walk out at exactly 3 hours?
No, but they might start getting bored or uncomfortable. Moreover, they might not see it in the first place if they know ahead of time that it's going to be 3 and a half hours, with no intermissions. A decent movie, I think, can sustain the viewer's interest for 2.5 hours. At that point, people start needing to go to the bathroom, or get sleepy from having been in a dark theatre for so long, or are uncomfortable from sitting in one place for the entire time, or are about ready to kill those damn kids two rows up who keep talking.
If the movie is particularly well made, I think you can get most people to ignore these issues for another half hour or so, pushing you out to 3 hours. At 3.5 hours though, you're asking people to ignore their discomfort for a full hour, which is going to decrease their level of enjoyment. Instead of saying "wow, that was a great movie," they'll say "it was good, but a bit long. I also missed a bit because I finally couldn't hold out any longer and had to run out to the bathroom." The movie wouldn't have bombed or anything, but the word of mouth simply would not have been as positive.
This equation changes when you're advertising something as a "special edition." People have already seen the movie, so they are in a position to more easily judge if they are going to have the patience for an extended version. Even more importantly, people watch DVDs at home, where they can pause it for bathroom or snack breaks. For me, personally, I don't intend to see these extended versions in the theatre because I know I'm not going to enjoy it. I've got the DVDs, I'll watch those, but I think that the original versions are a more appropriate length for a theatre.
In A Beautiful Mind, the point was that John Nash only THOUGHT he was helping the CIA look for secret communiques. He had severe mental problems, and the imaginary CIA job was put in in order to communicate that.
I actually like the way Amazon does things. Yes, it is a fairly unintelligent system, all it does is look for correlations. But, once you've got a fairly large dataset to work with, over a variety of categories, it can often recommend interesting things. The very fact that it has no concious design is what makes it work, I think. Compare Amazon's system to, say, the Victoria's Secret website, where they will recommend one of their 3 or 4 highest margin products, no matter what you buy. Now THAT is useless.
Okay, this is a bit odd of a question, but this seems like as appropriate of an area to ask it as anywhere. I have a tablet PC (with wacom digitizer), but the pens that come with it are butt ugly. Wacom has said that they're working on "executive pens," but the pictures don't look much better (and also they have been delayed some 6 months already). It is possible to take the circuitry out of a wacom tablet pen, and put it into another pen. However, the pen needs to have a reasonably wide body (to fit the circuitry), and also needs to be totally non magnetic. So any metal has to be aluminum, or something else that won't interfere with magnetic fields.
Since you don't own certain rights to what you're listening to, they have every right to restrict it.
How do you figure? Are you saying that first sale doctrine does NOT allow you to resell used music? Are you saying that fair use does NOT allow you to listen to music on whatever device you want (computer, car stereo, mp3 player, etc.)? Those are all prohibited by these various copy protection schemes. DRM isn't just trying to prevent you from doing things you're not allowed to do, it's trying to add additional restrictions, and were it not for the DMCA, we would be well within our rights to hack these protection schemes to reclaim our rights under copyright law.
I don't disagree that developing nations would probably be fine with movie companies not releasing legal dvds in their countries. What I was trying to point out is that if region coding were abolished, prices would NOT drop to $6 everywhere, instead it would likely rise to $15 everywhere.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think anyone ever thought that there was a problem with punch cards, either. I mean, you punch a card, how hard is that? The problem is when you've got an election where the difference is less than 0.5%. At that point, everyone goes totally nuts. Obviously it's easy to tell the difference between a ballot with an X, and a blank ballot. But what about a ballot with a little dash, or even a dot? Do you count that? What about if there are two boxes marked, but they are marked differently (maybe one looks like it's been scratched out)? What if the pen is out of ink, so you can see where the pen was pressed, but there's no actual ink mark? Those are the pen equivalents of pregnant or hanging chads. It won't be a problem in most elections, but when you have a frenzy like in Florida, with reps from both sides accusing the others of cheating, those distinctions are going to become huge controversies.
Seinfeld reference. There's an episode when a reporter thinks that Seinfeld is gay, and throughout the episode, whenever anyone says anything about being gay, it's always followed with "...not that there's anything wrong with that."
In general though, I agree that it seems pretty silly for someone to complain that he won't be able to use this "3d" display if he is blind in one eye.
I admit that I don't know anything about the history of the telegraph, but the telephone was never cheap. In fact, in its infancy, the telephone was so expensive that some thought it would only be useful as a way of letting someone know that he had received a telegram!
Regarding the Internet, you say that "soon people were paying for the priviledge?" As opposed to what? When in the history of the Internet was one able to access the Internet without either paying an ISP, or getting access through the university/one's place of work.
I notice you sidestepped cell phones. What, you don't have some made up argument about how cell phone service was free at first too?
Your entire thesis is wrong, it is the opposite of correct. Communication does not get more expensive, it gets cheaper! The price of a long distance phone call has dropped from more than a dollar per minute to less than $0.05! The price of bandwidth has been falling steadily, and is likely to fall further. Given that VoIP takes a very small amount of bandwidth compared to many other activities (P2P, for example), it is unlikely that it will ever involve any additional fee above and beyond the price already being paid for broadband.
Okay, you're right, the private sector has the potential to bring about monopolies such as Microsoft. Let's look a little closer at the birth of the computing industry, though. The alternative was the USSR, where investment was controlled by the state. They never understood the potential of computers, and as a result, they were left in the dust. Sure, we ended up with IBM, then replaced by MS and Intel, but that's a damn sight better than the crap Russia got.
Probably the parachutes too though, right? Parachutes plus nosecone sounds like it could be getting close to 10%. Oh well, I'm sure they know what they're doing, and are keeping it under 10%
First, heavy weightlifting will lower one's resistance to drugs. In women, it can actually cause more serious problems, such as delaying the onset of puberty in female gymnasts. Excess protein or creatine may help to build muscle, but will cause kidney damage. It's just a matter of degree, it's not AS bad as steroids, and anyway it would be impossible to detect (and who would draw the line at where one is consuming too much protein?).
Second, I think you are very wrong about hard work being unable to compensate for natural talent. Genetics don't count for jack if you're not willing to work hard. My family actaually has pretty good genes for running, my father used to run marathons, and when I'm in shape, I can sprint really goddamn fast. But none of us have ever competed, because we're not that serious about running. We may very well have the natural potential to be great, or maybe not, we've never tested it. But the one thing I can say for certain is that whether or not we've got good genes for running, ANYONE who runs daily could probably outrun me because they work harder. This is true to a lesser degree in the Olympics too. If someone is naturally the most talented, but doesn't train as hard (or trains incorrectly), he still will probably lose.
One last little "food for thought" bit: what if the genetic manipulation occurs before birth. First consider the case of outright engineering, using retroviruses or whatever to insert new genes at conception. Next consider the case of Gattaca, where a large number of eggs are fertilized by a large number of sperm, and only those fertilized eggs with the best combinations of genes are put into the uterus. Would you exclude case 1, both cases, or allow both?
I agree a line needs to be drawn, but I don't want to see a situation develop where any interaction with modern medicine has the potential to disqualify olympic athletes, nor do I want to see a situation where the average individual is comparable to an olympic athlete because he has performance enhancers available to him that are not available to the olympian. I know we've spent too long discussing this, so if you respond I'l read your response, but I'm not going to talk about it anymore :)
Never seen, much less used, Dr. Bronners Magic Soap. My skin dries out pretty easily, so probably not my kind of thing.
Steroids don't mess with your genes either. Where do you draw the line between "nutrition" and "drugs?" You talk a lot about "the best" athletes. What is the best, though? Clearly we're not just looking for people with the best natural ability, or else we would forbid them to exercise or practice for fear of allowing hard work to compensate for genetics. So willingness to work hard and make sacrifices is apparently something we factor into the decision of what makes someone the best. So how does that make chemical or genetic manipulations wrong? Unlike the dog training mentioned before, the dogs cannot decide that they want their coats ironed, or whatever you were saying. People engage in all activities of their own volition, and therefore whatever they do to gain an edge is a choice they have made, not something imposed upon them from the outside.
Of course, you are correct. However, most deoderants are also anti-perspirants. Plain deoderant is a pretty small niche product, especially given that it's exactly the same as deoderant soap, except with a talc base rather than a soap base.
I'm not going to address the dog issue except to say that we're not trying to breed better people. So, while it might be preferrable to set stricter rules on dog shows in order to encourage a superior gene pool for that breed, the same argument does not apply for human athletes.
You know, deoderant contains the same bacteria killing ingredients as deoderant soap. Deoderant also contains aluminum salts that essentially plug up the pores to keep you from sweating. As far as bacteria killing goes though, deoderant and deoderant soap do the same thing, so if you think that using ether, alchohol, and/or triclosan to kill bacteria in the armpits is bad, you should stop using deoderant as well.
4) Use whitening toothpaste and listerene.
Whitening toothpastes use acid to whiten. So long as your teeth are not visibly yellowish, I don't think they need to be gleaming white. Frankly, that's just unnatural. Also, depending on how many times per day you engage in this routine, you may be overusing your listerine. If you use it more than about twice per day, you can actually end up destroying the enzymes in your saliva, and overdrying your mouth (because of the alchohol), which allows thrush, a whitish fungus, to grow on your tongue.
6) Avoid colognes and perfumes. These are out-dated leftovers from a time before we had the resources to effectively bathe daily.
Not really, some of them just smell nice, in fact my girlfriend picked two colognes out for me. I agree with your point on using sparingly. One to two sprays on my torso is usually about right, with a shirt over that the scent is fairly mild, but lasts more or less the whole day because the shirt holds it in. The way girls apply perfume, to the wrists and neck, is generally wrong, because it rubs off and doesn't last long.
$7? Here in San Francisco, movies have shot up to the absurd price of $9.50!
Regarding the subject at hand though, I often see those movies with "Property of Warner Bros." appearing at the bottom every so often. Is that what we're talking about? If so, why not simply vary exactly when that message appears? No one would even know, at least at first, and the only way to keep from being caught would be to put a black box over that area for the entire movie, which would make the copy much lower quality.
You underrate improvements in nutrition and training methods, not to mention equipment (if nothing else, most sports at least include shoes as equipment, and there have been tremendous advances in shoe materials). How many records stand for more than a decade or two? Have a look at some swimming records. I see no one in the top 25 of the half dozen or so that I clicked on dating back earlier than 1970. Moreover, revolutions in technique, such as the switch to the "flop" high jump technique, totally revolutionize some sports. For that matter, women have only been competing in many sports for 50 years or less, and so are utterly uncomparable to any female athletes prior in histor.
Also, I dispute your claim that no one cares about steroids in bodybuilding. Indeed, that is why there are now natural competitions, because people realize that it is sick to have a sport where the only way to compete is to completely fuck up your body's hormonal balance (now how long will it take people to realize that the same is true of women's gymnastics?).
I agree with your point about rules. Yes, the rules should be clearly defined, and people should have to compete within those rules. That didn't stop the government from changing the rules for professional golf to allow handicapped golfers to use carts, but that's another issue for another time. The difference here, I think, is that you've still got a person, you're not adding in new equipment, you're just choosing not to regulate what methods this person uses to train.
Overall, I think that a common sense approach has to be taken. If gene therapy is experimental and error prone, it should not be allowed. If it is commonplace, and ordinary citizens use it as part of regular medical practice, I think it's ridiculous to restrict athletes. Likewise, I think it's ridiculous that athletes are being flagged as "drug abusers" for taking over the counter headache medicines.
Why isn't it fair? Is it any more fair that they have to spend 60 hours a week in the gym/practicing? Really, this is basically just like an improvement in equipment, in nutrition, or in training methods. Gene therapy will not replace hard work, it will simply make that hard work more productive. If everyone does it, the bar is simply raised higher. It won't be any easier to be a world champion, it will simply mean that the world champions of tomorrow are far greater than the world champions of today (who, in turn, are superior to the world champions of yesterday, look at how frequently records are broken).
Actually, I prefered the LCD displays, but unfortunately most automotive magazines considered digital dashboards ugly, so they've fallen out of favor.
One thing that is funny, though: dimes do not state their denomination. Nickels and pennies say "five cents" and "one cent" respectively, and quarters are, of course, a quarter of a dollar. But a dime just says "one dime." How useless is that?
The average life expectancy of a bill is actually shorter than the average length of time it takes for a bill to reach public circulation. Most bills never even make it to the public's hands before wearing out. If you're in London, you may not have any American currency on you, so I'll pull out my wallet and have a look at the dates: 2001, 2001, 2001, 1999, 2001, 1996, 1999, 1999. Only one bill is older than 4 years, so in a few years when the old bills have worn out, it will be nearly impossible for counterfitters to introduce large numbers of old bills without drawing attention to themselves. Plus, if only 10% of the money in circulations is an old-style bill, stores will subject it to more scrutiny, making it harder to create a convincing counterfit.
No, but they might start getting bored or uncomfortable. Moreover, they might not see it in the first place if they know ahead of time that it's going to be 3 and a half hours, with no intermissions. A decent movie, I think, can sustain the viewer's interest for 2.5 hours. At that point, people start needing to go to the bathroom, or get sleepy from having been in a dark theatre for so long, or are uncomfortable from sitting in one place for the entire time, or are about ready to kill those damn kids two rows up who keep talking.
If the movie is particularly well made, I think you can get most people to ignore these issues for another half hour or so, pushing you out to 3 hours. At 3.5 hours though, you're asking people to ignore their discomfort for a full hour, which is going to decrease their level of enjoyment. Instead of saying "wow, that was a great movie," they'll say "it was good, but a bit long. I also missed a bit because I finally couldn't hold out any longer and had to run out to the bathroom." The movie wouldn't have bombed or anything, but the word of mouth simply would not have been as positive.
This equation changes when you're advertising something as a "special edition." People have already seen the movie, so they are in a position to more easily judge if they are going to have the patience for an extended version. Even more importantly, people watch DVDs at home, where they can pause it for bathroom or snack breaks. For me, personally, I don't intend to see these extended versions in the theatre because I know I'm not going to enjoy it. I've got the DVDs, I'll watch those, but I think that the original versions are a more appropriate length for a theatre.
In A Beautiful Mind, the point was that John Nash only THOUGHT he was helping the CIA look for secret communiques. He had severe mental problems, and the imaginary CIA job was put in in order to communicate that.
I actually like the way Amazon does things. Yes, it is a fairly unintelligent system, all it does is look for correlations. But, once you've got a fairly large dataset to work with, over a variety of categories, it can often recommend interesting things. The very fact that it has no concious design is what makes it work, I think. Compare Amazon's system to, say, the Victoria's Secret website, where they will recommend one of their 3 or 4 highest margin products, no matter what you buy. Now THAT is useless.
If you think those are "natural talent," I've got a bridge to sell you...
Any advice?
How do you figure? Are you saying that first sale doctrine does NOT allow you to resell used music? Are you saying that fair use does NOT allow you to listen to music on whatever device you want (computer, car stereo, mp3 player, etc.)? Those are all prohibited by these various copy protection schemes. DRM isn't just trying to prevent you from doing things you're not allowed to do, it's trying to add additional restrictions, and were it not for the DMCA, we would be well within our rights to hack these protection schemes to reclaim our rights under copyright law.
I don't disagree that developing nations would probably be fine with movie companies not releasing legal dvds in their countries. What I was trying to point out is that if region coding were abolished, prices would NOT drop to $6 everywhere, instead it would likely rise to $15 everywhere.