Right, because pointing out that A) choosing living in the middle of nowhere is going to lead to fewer options and B) not trying to talk to the people running the business to voice your concerns will mean that you won't get what you want is absolutely being a dick.
"Your area" being what? You keep referencing this "area" yet you give no mention of what it is or the population so that one might be able to judge how close your "area" is to most populated locations.
Yes, one person boycotting won't make a damn difference. If you actually think it's worthwhile, try getting a petition together and say "Hey, this group of people want this and if we don't get it, you won't get our business any more". But you want to be the typical lazy internet asshat who bitches and does nothing to try to change things.
Where do you get this idea that everything we don't like must be protested?
Listen, you're bitching that your "area" won't show 2D digital because all the digital screens are filled with 3D films. You obviously think that this is something worth making a fuss about or you wouldn't be crying like a little girl. I'm simply offering you ways that might help you fix your perceived "problem". But apparently you don't really care about the digital 2D like you claim, you want just to be "cool" and hate on 3D for no reason other than to be an asshat.
Not just that, but there's cost as a major factor too. Why pay $20 or so for two movie tickets (assuming that you're in the minority of slashdotters and have a female companion) when you can just wait 4 months and buy it on blu-ray for the same price yet infinite replays at no additional charge?
Not true. The remake of My Bloody Valentine was only worth watching because the 3D was done quite well and allowed some very interesting shots of the carnage.
If might be eliminating 2D digital projection out in the middle of nowhere where you have only one theater for 100 miles, but in civilization, it's not happening at all. Thus the majority are unaffected and don't care about your complaints. Have you tried organizing a petition to take to the manager at the movie theater stating that X number of people will simply stop going if they don't provide 2D digital as well as 3D? Probably not - you just want to sit there and whine that the world should change to meet your whims without doing a goddamn thing about it.
The problem is that the christians (ESPECIALLY evangelicals) don't want tolerance, they want to control everything
As do quite a large number of secular atheists - just look at the Democrat party and how they want to ban anything that they don't approve of, with the most highly Democrat populated states having the most restrictions on what people can and cannot do. That's why I despise the two party system, because they're both a bunch of sociopaths hellbent on forcing everyone to bow to their will and don't give a damn about freedom or the Constitution.
Nah, if the Muslims over there were smart, we'd be reading an article next week titled "PC and cell phone users seize and burn members of the Taliban to stop idiocy and tyranny". Now we all know this won't happen because for some fucked up reason, they LIKE being abused....kind of like the really hot girls in high school and college who always date the guys who treat them like shit and beat the crap out of them.
I'm assuming you've yet to hear of a US carrier called "T-Mobile" - they have unlimited plans for $50 per month (though at that price they do throttle your speed after the first 2 GB each month).
Oh, and if Apple bought a carrier, I guarantee that you'd pay a nice hefty premium for the "privilege" of getting to say "I have an Apple iPhone on Apple Wireless".
I think it's looking like the government needs to intervene and disband Apple as a matter of public interest. If Apple is allowed to proceed, society will be severely harmed because no one will be able to produce anything, do anything, or think anything without violating at least half a dozen of Apple's bogus 'patents'.
What's that? You want to talk while making a phone call? Sorry, Apple patented that - that'll be $100 per call in royalties to Apple or you'll be sued for $750 billion dollars. Breathing while making a phone call will only cost $50 per call....
They may not currently be a monopoly, but at the rate the "justice" (I use the term sarcastically) system is sucking their dick, they will be soon because all other companies will be banned from competing with Apple.
You have two flaws in your argument. One, the naive belief that soldiers, people who kill without question for money, would have any qualms about killing US citizens (they've done it before). Two, the notion that people can "stop paying taxes". There's a reason the government set up the tax system so that taxes are deducted before you ever get your paycheck. The only way to stop paying taxes is to stop working and having an income.
Sorry chief, but you're wrong. Around 40% of the adults in the country own guns and those that do usually own multiple guns (thus they can easily arm their friends that do not arm guns in case of an emergency). Yes we're talking a few dozen MILLION people. Do you think the combined police, military, and other federal agents begin to come close to that number?
Well, yes. However, it was back when we were part of the British Empire....and I think we all know how that problem was rectified - the same way all tyrannies are ended. Sadly, if it came down to a war, I think most Americans are too lazy and cowardly to stand up and fight for their rights.
And the sad part is, refusing to buy their products doesn't help because then they just use that as "evidence" of piracy and thus proof of why the government needs to start stealing your money and giving it to them.
I'm just waiting for the day when they try to start kicking in doors and seizing guns. Then we'll get a civil war, which is the only way to stop the police state we're rapidly heading towards and the rest of the world lives in.
Except big picture, Schmidt is right. At the rate Android market share is growing, if you don't develop for Android, you'll be developing for such a small portion of users that most people would just not bother. Sure, some might do it and make money - but nowhere near the money that they're currently making.
My bad, I was really tired when I wrote that and I read your post wrong. Still, gun-related accidents shouldn't count because people find all sorts of ways to harm themselves through negligence. All of the regulation in the world won't prevent stupid people from doing stupid things unintentionally. Just look at how many police officers unintentionally fire their guns due to negligence (one of my favorite examples being that video on the internet years back where the cop was lecturing students and then proceeded to improperly hold his gun while holstering it and shot himself in the foot).
Because they are using their numbers to justify taking guns away from law abiding citizens but not the police. Therefore when officer jackass shoots someone, it is irrelevant to statistics regarding citizens.
They listed it on the box as a feature of buying a PS3. You buy a PS3 and you get to use the multiplayer component of your games via PSN. That IS an obligation because you listed it on the box and advertised it as part of the system.
unlike SONY, which is not obligated to provide access
Yes, they are! They sold you PSN as part of the PS3 package. They are completely obligated to provide you with the ability to use the feature that you PAID for unless you do something ban worthy (cheating).
Right, you're just arguing that Sony did nothing wrong, but you don't share the view that they did nothing wrong.
Yes, they are unrealistic for the very reason I pointed out. They do not allow people to behave as they would in real life situations because they want to achieve a predetermined result.
Many of the studies have shown that hands-free kits are almost as dangerous as hand-held phones, so why would you think that strange behaviour would actually help anyway?
What part of "they hate cell phones and are doing 'research' to provide 'evidence' of cell phones being evil" is so hard to understand? Talking on a phone that doesn't require hands is literally no different than talking to a person in the same car as you (actually, it's better because you don't have the temptation to look at them and take your eyes off the road). This utterly ridiculous crusade against inanimate objects needs to stop because as studies have shown, your bans don't have any effect on accident rates and it just makes you look damn foolish to blame an inanimate object for the actions of a person. But then again, I'm sure you'd argue to the end that guns cause people to commit murder, so your ability to think rationally is clearly called into question.
That's not what I've observed; seems like some idiot on a phone is always trying to get in a wreck with me.
So the evil phone made them stupid? What about the same number of idiotic drivers before cell phones existed? Was it the evil radio making them stupid back then?
Harvard researchers estimate about one in 20 U.S. traffic accidents involve a driver talking on a cell phone
Come on class, we all know it - lets sing it together: "Correlation does not imply causation". Did you ever bother to look at what percentage of those were the person TALKING on the phone being hit and not the person being hit talking? Of course not, you already determined that "cell phones are evil". What about the people who were talking on the phone and something unrelated happened (say a deer running in front of them or hitting a pothole) that caused the accident and the phone was irrelevant?
Wow, you're blind. Every single person I see outside talking on the phone is like that.
Really? You're the only one trying to broadly paint everyone as the same and claim that "the evil cell phone made them stupid!" - I'm pointing out the simple truth that stupid people will act stupid with a cell phone and intelligent people won't. Why? Because your hatred causes you to focus on people doing something stupid while on a cell phone and you ignore the countless people talking on them that AREN'T utter morons.
When you're willing to accept that cell phones / tv / rock music / Elvis / etc don't make people morons and have a rational discussion, I'll be willing to talk.
Except it's not that easy these days when the incumbents intentionally rigged the system where you need millions and millions of dollars just to get a chance to go to political debates and have your views heard by the people.
The Dems are not liberal, they're centrist and have been moving to the center since about the time of Reagan.
Right, because "centrist" means banning self defense, massively uneven tax burden distribution, massive government programs, banning / regulating the hell out of every last thing, flat out calling your political opponents your "enemies" on TV and then claiming that THEY refuse to try to work together, etc.
Seriously, your bias cannot be any more blatant, nor could it be further from reality. Both parties at the national level are full of shit - but this bullshit that Democrats can do no wrong is not only ridiculous, but really starting to get annoying.
I'd agree that they're fake Republicans. The US doesn't really have Republicans and Democrats anymore (at least not on the national level) - we have one party with a couple minor disagreements in views that they pretend to care about, but they share the primary goal of increasing the power of the Federal government and their own bank accounts. This is why the US desperately needs to break away from the Republican vs Democrat mentality, because it's screwing EVERYONE over except the politicians.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, because pointing out that A) choosing living in the middle of nowhere is going to lead to fewer options and B) not trying to talk to the people running the business to voice your concerns will mean that you won't get what you want is absolutely being a dick.
"Your area" being what? You keep referencing this "area" yet you give no mention of what it is or the population so that one might be able to judge how close your "area" is to most populated locations.
Yes, one person boycotting won't make a damn difference. If you actually think it's worthwhile, try getting a petition together and say "Hey, this group of people want this and if we don't get it, you won't get our business any more". But you want to be the typical lazy internet asshat who bitches and does nothing to try to change things.
Where do you get this idea that everything we don't like must be protested?
Listen, you're bitching that your "area" won't show 2D digital because all the digital screens are filled with 3D films. You obviously think that this is something worth making a fuss about or you wouldn't be crying like a little girl. I'm simply offering you ways that might help you fix your perceived "problem". But apparently you don't really care about the digital 2D like you claim, you want just to be "cool" and hate on 3D for no reason other than to be an asshat.
It still made the movie worth watching (at least once). Seeing it again in 2D later on was just "meh" because you didn't get the great visuals.
Not just that, but there's cost as a major factor too. Why pay $20 or so for two movie tickets (assuming that you're in the minority of slashdotters and have a female companion) when you can just wait 4 months and buy it on blu-ray for the same price yet infinite replays at no additional charge?
Not true. The remake of My Bloody Valentine was only worth watching because the 3D was done quite well and allowed some very interesting shots of the carnage.
3D allows for depth perception, which allows for more immersion and realism.
If might be eliminating 2D digital projection out in the middle of nowhere where you have only one theater for 100 miles, but in civilization, it's not happening at all. Thus the majority are unaffected and don't care about your complaints. Have you tried organizing a petition to take to the manager at the movie theater stating that X number of people will simply stop going if they don't provide 2D digital as well as 3D? Probably not - you just want to sit there and whine that the world should change to meet your whims without doing a goddamn thing about it.
The problem is that the christians (ESPECIALLY evangelicals) don't want tolerance, they want to control everything
As do quite a large number of secular atheists - just look at the Democrat party and how they want to ban anything that they don't approve of, with the most highly Democrat populated states having the most restrictions on what people can and cannot do. That's why I despise the two party system, because they're both a bunch of sociopaths hellbent on forcing everyone to bow to their will and don't give a damn about freedom or the Constitution.
Nah, if the Muslims over there were smart, we'd be reading an article next week titled "PC and cell phone users seize and burn members of the Taliban to stop idiocy and tyranny". Now we all know this won't happen because for some fucked up reason, they LIKE being abused....kind of like the really hot girls in high school and college who always date the guys who treat them like shit and beat the crap out of them.
I'm assuming you've yet to hear of a US carrier called "T-Mobile" - they have unlimited plans for $50 per month (though at that price they do throttle your speed after the first 2 GB each month).
Oh, and if Apple bought a carrier, I guarantee that you'd pay a nice hefty premium for the "privilege" of getting to say "I have an Apple iPhone on Apple Wireless".
I think it's looking like the government needs to intervene and disband Apple as a matter of public interest. If Apple is allowed to proceed, society will be severely harmed because no one will be able to produce anything, do anything, or think anything without violating at least half a dozen of Apple's bogus 'patents'.
What's that? You want to talk while making a phone call? Sorry, Apple patented that - that'll be $100 per call in royalties to Apple or you'll be sued for $750 billion dollars. Breathing while making a phone call will only cost $50 per call....
They may not currently be a monopoly, but at the rate the "justice" (I use the term sarcastically) system is sucking their dick, they will be soon because all other companies will be banned from competing with Apple.
You have two flaws in your argument. One, the naive belief that soldiers, people who kill without question for money, would have any qualms about killing US citizens (they've done it before). Two, the notion that people can "stop paying taxes". There's a reason the government set up the tax system so that taxes are deducted before you ever get your paycheck. The only way to stop paying taxes is to stop working and having an income.
Sorry chief, but you're wrong. Around 40% of the adults in the country own guns and those that do usually own multiple guns (thus they can easily arm their friends that do not arm guns in case of an emergency). Yes we're talking a few dozen MILLION people. Do you think the combined police, military, and other federal agents begin to come close to that number?
Well, yes. However, it was back when we were part of the British Empire....and I think we all know how that problem was rectified - the same way all tyrannies are ended. Sadly, if it came down to a war, I think most Americans are too lazy and cowardly to stand up and fight for their rights.
And the sad part is, refusing to buy their products doesn't help because then they just use that as "evidence" of piracy and thus proof of why the government needs to start stealing your money and giving it to them.
I'm just waiting for the day when they try to start kicking in doors and seizing guns. Then we'll get a civil war, which is the only way to stop the police state we're rapidly heading towards and the rest of the world lives in.
Except big picture, Schmidt is right. At the rate Android market share is growing, if you don't develop for Android, you'll be developing for such a small portion of users that most people would just not bother. Sure, some might do it and make money - but nowhere near the money that they're currently making.
My bad, I was really tired when I wrote that and I read your post wrong. Still, gun-related accidents shouldn't count because people find all sorts of ways to harm themselves through negligence. All of the regulation in the world won't prevent stupid people from doing stupid things unintentionally. Just look at how many police officers unintentionally fire their guns due to negligence (one of my favorite examples being that video on the internet years back where the cop was lecturing students and then proceeded to improperly hold his gun while holstering it and shot himself in the foot).
Because they are using their numbers to justify taking guns away from law abiding citizens but not the police. Therefore when officer jackass shoots someone, it is irrelevant to statistics regarding citizens.
They listed it on the box as a feature of buying a PS3. You buy a PS3 and you get to use the multiplayer component of your games via PSN. That IS an obligation because you listed it on the box and advertised it as part of the system.
unlike SONY, which is not obligated to provide access
Yes, they are! They sold you PSN as part of the PS3 package. They are completely obligated to provide you with the ability to use the feature that you PAID for unless you do something ban worthy (cheating).
Right, you're just arguing that Sony did nothing wrong, but you don't share the view that they did nothing wrong.
Yes, they are unrealistic for the very reason I pointed out. They do not allow people to behave as they would in real life situations because they want to achieve a predetermined result.
Many of the studies have shown that hands-free kits are almost as dangerous as hand-held phones, so why would you think that strange behaviour would actually help anyway?
What part of "they hate cell phones and are doing 'research' to provide 'evidence' of cell phones being evil" is so hard to understand? Talking on a phone that doesn't require hands is literally no different than talking to a person in the same car as you (actually, it's better because you don't have the temptation to look at them and take your eyes off the road). This utterly ridiculous crusade against inanimate objects needs to stop because as studies have shown, your bans don't have any effect on accident rates and it just makes you look damn foolish to blame an inanimate object for the actions of a person. But then again, I'm sure you'd argue to the end that guns cause people to commit murder, so your ability to think rationally is clearly called into question.
That's not what I've observed; seems like some idiot on a phone is always trying to get in a wreck with me.
So the evil phone made them stupid? What about the same number of idiotic drivers before cell phones existed? Was it the evil radio making them stupid back then?
Harvard researchers estimate about one in 20 U.S. traffic accidents involve a driver talking on a cell phone
Come on class, we all know it - lets sing it together: "Correlation does not imply causation". Did you ever bother to look at what percentage of those were the person TALKING on the phone being hit and not the person being hit talking? Of course not, you already determined that "cell phones are evil". What about the people who were talking on the phone and something unrelated happened (say a deer running in front of them or hitting a pothole) that caused the accident and the phone was irrelevant?
Wow, you're blind. Every single person I see outside talking on the phone is like that.
Really? You're the only one trying to broadly paint everyone as the same and claim that "the evil cell phone made them stupid!" - I'm pointing out the simple truth that stupid people will act stupid with a cell phone and intelligent people won't. Why? Because your hatred causes you to focus on people doing something stupid while on a cell phone and you ignore the countless people talking on them that AREN'T utter morons.
When you're willing to accept that cell phones / tv / rock music / Elvis / etc don't make people morons and have a rational discussion, I'll be willing to talk.
Except it's not that easy these days when the incumbents intentionally rigged the system where you need millions and millions of dollars just to get a chance to go to political debates and have your views heard by the people.
The Dems are not liberal, they're centrist and have been moving to the center since about the time of Reagan.
Right, because "centrist" means banning self defense, massively uneven tax burden distribution, massive government programs, banning / regulating the hell out of every last thing, flat out calling your political opponents your "enemies" on TV and then claiming that THEY refuse to try to work together, etc.
Seriously, your bias cannot be any more blatant, nor could it be further from reality. Both parties at the national level are full of shit - but this bullshit that Democrats can do no wrong is not only ridiculous, but really starting to get annoying.
I'd agree that they're fake Republicans. The US doesn't really have Republicans and Democrats anymore (at least not on the national level) - we have one party with a couple minor disagreements in views that they pretend to care about, but they share the primary goal of increasing the power of the Federal government and their own bank accounts. This is why the US desperately needs to break away from the Republican vs Democrat mentality, because it's screwing EVERYONE over except the politicians.