Yeah, this seems like an incredibly stupid thing to become so righteously anal over. I've never once been distracted by someone texting in a movie. Talking, yes, but never texting.
This is just some stupid theater owner's personal crusade to fight a really ridiculous cause. They've probably spent 10x as much fighting cellphone use as they would have lost in customers had they allowed them in the same capacity as any other theater. Heck, if they are escorting people out of the theater for texting, that would be WAY more distracting than someone just using their phone.
I would stay away from a theater with this policy out of spite.
You must not have to deal with many texters. Many times have I had to kick the back of somebody's chair because I'm being blinded by their lack of ability to keep themselves from chatting with their friends every minute of every day. It's not about being righteously anal, it's about not wanting to have your $11 experience be ruined by some self-centered asshole.
The Alamo's policies alone make me wish there was one around here that I could patronize, but the fact that they would take an angry person's voicemail and make it into a pre-show video (without trying to appease the hypersensitive by censoring the hilarious overuse of profanity) makes me want to travel to Texas solely to give them my money.
Those who modded me troll like to text in the theater.
Ha, ha! Good luck with that argument if you ever have to use it. I expect you think that posting stuff on the Internet also means that you give the rights to everyone who downloads it to make copies, reproduce and use as they wish?
No, but by posting stuff to Facebook's servers you give the rights to Facebook, Inc. to make copies, reproduce, and use the content as they wish. Just like if you were to record something to my voicemail server.
Perhaps I should change the outgoing message on my answering machine to "by leaving a message for me, you grant me unlimited rights to use your message and any intellectual property rights contained within."
What good guys? Isn't posting her rant on Youtube a copyright infringement?
Is posting a voicemail from a telemarketer on YouTube copyright infringement? Is playing a voicemail from a bad business on some news program's help-the-consumer-with-their-problems segment copyright infringement? No. It's not an artistic work, and when you record something directly to my machine you essentially hand over whatever rights may exist to me.
So you admit that you didn't have to go see a movie, but you did anyway and don't see anything wrong with bothering anyone around you while you are paranoid about your kid. Ya know.. my phone vibrates differently for a text message and email than it does a phone call. One would think that if your kid got hurt, someone would CALL you. In fact, if I get a phone call and don't answer it, it vibrates for several seconds. Then, when a voice mail is left, it vibrates again. So I know if someone that just called me left a voice mail.
So NO ONE needs to check email or text messages during a movie. Tell someone if they really need to get hold of you to CALL YOU and leave a voice mail. NOW you know it's important and you can slip out, check your voice mail.
Your petty, self-centered excuses (along with others on this board) only show how inconsiderate, self centered, or technologically ignorant you are.
At least if you are technologically ignorant about your phone, you can learn....
Did you even READ his comment before replying to it? "sat in the very back row, kept our phones on silent mode and in my wife's purse so we could check by looking into the purse without actually taking the phones out........it is possible to do without anyone even knowing you are doing it." If they were bothering anybody, somebody could have complained to the waitstaff. Nobody did. The waitstaff who were standing right behind them didn't say anything about it. I hate people who text in movies when I know they're doing it. People obviously didn't know they were doing it so who cares?
Yeah, this seems like an incredibly stupid thing to become so righteously anal over. I've never once been distracted by someone texting in a movie. Talking, yes, but never texting.
This is just some stupid theater owner's personal crusade to fight a really ridiculous cause. They've probably spent 10x as much fighting cellphone use as they would have lost in customers had they allowed them in the same capacity as any other theater. Heck, if they are escorting people out of the theater for texting, that would be WAY more distracting than someone just using their phone.
I would stay away from a theater with this policy out of spite.
You must not have to deal with many texters. Many times have I had to kick the back of somebody's chair because I'm being blinded by their lack of ability to keep themselves from chatting with their friends every minute of every day. It's not about being righteously anal, it's about not wanting to have your $11 experience be ruined by some self-centered asshole.
The Alamo's policies alone make me wish there was one around here that I could patronize, but the fact that they would take an angry person's voicemail and make it into a pre-show video (without trying to appease the hypersensitive by censoring the hilarious overuse of profanity) makes me want to travel to Texas solely to give them my money.
At a unit weight of 4kg, this is more than 30.000 laptop computers. Of course there's more different models shipping right now, but 30.000 different devices should be a good baseline.
So... will you be funding this, then? When can I expect a check?
unshielded avionics do in fact receive interference from a certain frequency band emitted by cell phones.
Good thing all avionics and life safety equipment are shielded, then. Trust me, this shit is designed to withstand with absolutely no hiccups the enormous amount of interference that a lightning strike directly to the frame of the plane generates... a cell phone is nothing.
... excuse me? If anything, an aircraft body is an antenna. What physics professor told you that an aluminum cylinder blocks and reflects radio waves? (Hint: None did, because the notion is preposterous.)
Cutting back on nuclear power phases out plans for new, far more safe reactors that even recycle their own fuel and have enough fail-safes to survive virtually any disaster. So we rely on old reactors still from 60 years ago using incredibly outdated technology. No wonder the shit breaks.
You also have to consider the fact that no technology to this date is nearly comparable capacity-wise to our nuclear power infrastructure. Nuclear power plants account for slightly more than 1% of the total number of utility power generators in the United States (66 nuclear generators out of 6,274: EIA), but they account for around 20% of our nation's total generation capacity (EIA). So basically, we CAN'T stop using these aging nuclear reactors until we build new nuclear reactors or devise a way to complete the impossible task of replacing their huge capacity with a different technology.
and are not retrofitted to prevent disasters which have been known about since the fucking 70s!!
Well seeing how the first disaster caused by a non-experimental nuclear power plant didn't happen until 1986, I'm not sure how much we could know about disasters that happened since the fucking 70s!!.
You bought all the propaganda about it being safe and clean. Now you're buying all the propaganda about it being dangerous and dirty. How about do some research for yourself rather than buying all the propaganda about everything. Your post clearly shows that you have not spent much time reading.
Something I posted earlier today in another thread:
How many people is electricity worth? Estimated death rates to provide a terawatt of power to the US for a year: Coal based power kills about 65,000 people per terawatt year mostly from pollution. Oil based power kills 130,000 per terawatt year from production and pollution (wars not included). Natural gas apparently kills about 35,000 people per terawatt year. Biofuels kill 100,000 people per terawatt year, primarily due to farming and logging accidents and air pollution. Photovoltaics kill 3500 people per terawatt year, mostly from falls, electrocutions and other accidents. Wind power kills 1300 people per terawatt year, primarily in accidents. Hydroelectric kills about 900 people per terawatt year in industrial accidents and catastrophic failures (dam breaks), but would probably be much if we have a large west coast earthquake. And nuclear thus far kills about 350 people per terawatt year. I haven't been able to find estimates for geothermal or solar thermal. I would guess that solar thermal will be about the same as wind power, and geothermal to be somewhat higher than hydroelectric.
You should never trust numbers like that to be accurate. Those opposed to a particular technology will always be the ones doing the highly-publicized research about the number of deaths that technology causes, and that research will always include many deaths that MIGHT POSSIBLY have been caused by something that the technology MIGHT POSSIBLY have been spewing into the environment that the victim MIGHT POSSIBLY have been exposed to long enough to die from it. Take cigarettes for example. The anti-tobacco lobby will increment the tobacco death count pretty much whenever somebody who has ever smoked a cigarette dies of lung cancer.
That being said, the numbers are still a somewhat reasonable way to compare the death tolls of various different technologies. And if the anti-nuclear lobby can't scrounge up enough deaths to make nuclear power appear more dangerous than fucking wind then it MUST be safe.
The problem with free speech evangelicals is that some people are reluctant take responsibility for thier speech.
Look, if you're opposed to free speech just come out and say it. Don't hedge around with stuff about "responsibility" and "consequences". Any petty dictator can say "My people all have free speech. I expect that they will use it responsibly. If they do not, the consequences will be a bullet to the head".
The government cannot restrict your freedom to say whatever you want. If you wish to exercise your right to free speech by calling me an asshole for no reason, I will exercise my right to free speech by making a physical statement with a punch to the face.
("Freedom of speech" does not mean "freedom to speak." It means "Freedom to make statements" and statements aren't necessarily speech.)
Even worse is the growing trend to assume you want Spanish language pages because your IP address is geolocated in Spain, completely disregarding the Accept-Language HTTP header. Google and Facebook are both abusing their geolocation technology in this way, and probably others as well. Just because you have the technology to do something, doesn't make it a good idea, especially when there is an already existing method of dealing with language preference which is under control of the users. Google fanboys will pop up now and say that the unwashed masses don't know how to configure their browsers, so Google is doing them a favour, but the reality is that browsers on PCs sold to the unwashed masses in Spain will default to Spanish, so the existing standards based method is at least no worse than the geolocation assumption in predicting what language the user might want, and much easier to work around especially if you want to access those services anonymously.
Google provides automatic redirection to the unwashed masses based on geolocation and adds a very simple way to get around it for those who don't want it. Just Google it.
But with that you still have the problem of having a restricted view. With ACTUAL full-screen split-screen, you can see an entire screen's-worth of the playing field. With that workaround, you still only see half a view stretched over the entire screen. It does seem like a neat way to stop screen lookers though.
Two wrongs do not make a good, but this was not totally uncalled for.
You don't "get back" at a corporation by stealing and releasing the personal information of tens of thousands of their customers. Regardless of your opinions about Sony, LulzSec are complete douchebags and deserve to be made Bubba's bitch posse in prison.
You can already download any EA release on release day with the EA Downloader and start playing immediately. I expect the other game distributors will soon follow suite.
You can download any release from almost ANY developer on Steam and start playing immediately. Plus, most games have a 10% preorder discount on Steam.
*sigh* MTV has destroyed a whole generation it seems.. I hope you're not one of those who believe that holding a steady shot for more than five seconds is boring.. Irreconcilable differences of opinion is where this will stand.. You're stepping on my pasto...
Absolutely not. If that was the case, I would have found the video we're discussing to be boring. MTV is absolute shit with regards to both their content and production value. Dissolves ARE boring, though, and way overused. This video does not need them. Why use them when they're not needed?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, this seems like an incredibly stupid thing to become so righteously anal over. I've never once been distracted by someone texting in a movie. Talking, yes, but never texting.
This is just some stupid theater owner's personal crusade to fight a really ridiculous cause. They've probably spent 10x as much fighting cellphone use as they would have lost in customers had they allowed them in the same capacity as any other theater. Heck, if they are escorting people out of the theater for texting, that would be WAY more distracting than someone just using their phone.
I would stay away from a theater with this policy out of spite.
You must not have to deal with many texters. Many times have I had to kick the back of somebody's chair because I'm being blinded by their lack of ability to keep themselves from chatting with their friends every minute of every day. It's not about being righteously anal, it's about not wanting to have your $11 experience be ruined by some self-centered asshole.
The Alamo's policies alone make me wish there was one around here that I could patronize, but the fact that they would take an angry person's voicemail and make it into a pre-show video (without trying to appease the hypersensitive by censoring the hilarious overuse of profanity) makes me want to travel to Texas solely to give them my money.
Those who modded me troll like to text in the theater.
Ha, ha! Good luck with that argument if you ever have to use it. I expect you think that posting stuff on the Internet also means that you give the rights to everyone who downloads it to make copies, reproduce and use as they wish?
No, but by posting stuff to Facebook's servers you give the rights to Facebook, Inc. to make copies, reproduce, and use the content as they wish. Just like if you were to record something to my voicemail server.
Perhaps I should change the outgoing message on my answering machine to "by leaving a message for me, you grant me unlimited rights to use your message and any intellectual property rights contained within."
You don't need to, because it is implied.
What good guys? Isn't posting her rant on Youtube a copyright infringement?
Is posting a voicemail from a telemarketer on YouTube copyright infringement? Is playing a voicemail from a bad business on some news program's help-the-consumer-with-their-problems segment copyright infringement? No. It's not an artistic work, and when you record something directly to my machine you essentially hand over whatever rights may exist to me.
So you admit that you didn't have to go see a movie, but you did anyway and don't see anything wrong with bothering anyone around you while you are paranoid about your kid. Ya know .. my phone vibrates differently for a text message and email than it does a phone call. One would think that if your kid got hurt, someone would CALL you. In fact, if I get a phone call and don't answer it, it vibrates for several seconds. Then, when a voice mail is left, it vibrates again. So I know if someone that just called me left a voice mail.
So NO ONE needs to check email or text messages during a movie. Tell someone if they really need to get hold of you to CALL YOU and leave a voice mail. NOW you know it's important and you can slip out, check your voice mail.
Your petty, self-centered excuses (along with others on this board) only show how inconsiderate, self centered, or technologically ignorant you are.
At least if you are technologically ignorant about your phone, you can learn ....
Did you even READ his comment before replying to it? "sat in the very back row, kept our phones on silent mode and in my wife's purse so we could check by looking into the purse without actually taking the phones out........it is possible to do without anyone even knowing you are doing it." If they were bothering anybody, somebody could have complained to the waitstaff. Nobody did. The waitstaff who were standing right behind them didn't say anything about it. I hate people who text in movies when I know they're doing it. People obviously didn't know they were doing it so who cares?
Yeah, this seems like an incredibly stupid thing to become so righteously anal over. I've never once been distracted by someone texting in a movie. Talking, yes, but never texting.
This is just some stupid theater owner's personal crusade to fight a really ridiculous cause. They've probably spent 10x as much fighting cellphone use as they would have lost in customers had they allowed them in the same capacity as any other theater. Heck, if they are escorting people out of the theater for texting, that would be WAY more distracting than someone just using their phone.
I would stay away from a theater with this policy out of spite.
You must not have to deal with many texters. Many times have I had to kick the back of somebody's chair because I'm being blinded by their lack of ability to keep themselves from chatting with their friends every minute of every day. It's not about being righteously anal, it's about not wanting to have your $11 experience be ruined by some self-centered asshole.
The Alamo's policies alone make me wish there was one around here that I could patronize, but the fact that they would take an angry person's voicemail and make it into a pre-show video (without trying to appease the hypersensitive by censoring the hilarious overuse of profanity) makes me want to travel to Texas solely to give them my money.
that little checkbox available on slashdot to disable ads because of my contributions. it's gone.
Sounds like you haven't been doing enough karma whoring lately.
How much cargo do you think a 747 can hold?
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Boeing_747-400#747-400ERF --> 112,760 kg
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Boeing_747-8#747-8_Freighter --> 140,000 kg
At a unit weight of 4kg, this is more than 30.000 laptop computers. Of course there's more different models shipping right now, but 30.000 different devices should be a good baseline.
So... will you be funding this, then? When can I expect a check?
unshielded avionics do in fact receive interference from a certain frequency band emitted by cell phones.
Good thing all avionics and life safety equipment are shielded, then. Trust me, this shit is designed to withstand with absolutely no hiccups the enormous amount of interference that a lightning strike directly to the frame of the plane generates... a cell phone is nothing.
An aircraft body is basically a faraday cage.
... excuse me? If anything, an aircraft body is an antenna. What physics professor told you that an aluminum cylinder blocks and reflects radio waves? (Hint: None did, because the notion is preposterous.)
Cutting back on nuclear power phases out plans for new, far more safe reactors that even recycle their own fuel and have enough fail-safes to survive virtually any disaster. So we rely on old reactors still from 60 years ago using incredibly outdated technology. No wonder the shit breaks.
You also have to consider the fact that no technology to this date is nearly comparable capacity-wise to our nuclear power infrastructure. Nuclear power plants account for slightly more than 1% of the total number of utility power generators in the United States (66 nuclear generators out of 6,274: EIA), but they account for around 20% of our nation's total generation capacity (EIA). So basically, we CAN'T stop using these aging nuclear reactors until we build new nuclear reactors or devise a way to complete the impossible task of replacing their huge capacity with a different technology.
Nuclear power is necessary. Sorry folks.
and are not retrofitted to prevent disasters which have been known about since the fucking 70s!!
Well seeing how the first disaster caused by a non-experimental nuclear power plant didn't happen until 1986, I'm not sure how much we could know about disasters that happened since the fucking 70s!!.
You bought all the propaganda about it being safe and clean. Now you're buying all the propaganda about it being dangerous and dirty. How about do some research for yourself rather than buying all the propaganda about everything. Your post clearly shows that you have not spent much time reading.
Something I posted earlier today in another thread:
How many people is electricity worth? Estimated death rates to provide a terawatt of power to the US for a year: Coal based power kills about 65,000 people per terawatt year mostly from pollution. Oil based power kills 130,000 per terawatt year from production and pollution (wars not included). Natural gas apparently kills about 35,000 people per terawatt year. Biofuels kill 100,000 people per terawatt year, primarily due to farming and logging accidents and air pollution. Photovoltaics kill 3500 people per terawatt year, mostly from falls, electrocutions and other accidents. Wind power kills 1300 people per terawatt year, primarily in accidents. Hydroelectric kills about 900 people per terawatt year in industrial accidents and catastrophic failures (dam breaks), but would probably be much if we have a large west coast earthquake. And nuclear thus far kills about 350 people per terawatt year. I haven't been able to find estimates for geothermal or solar thermal. I would guess that solar thermal will be about the same as wind power, and geothermal to be somewhat higher than hydroelectric.
You should never trust numbers like that to be accurate. Those opposed to a particular technology will always be the ones doing the highly-publicized research about the number of deaths that technology causes, and that research will always include many deaths that MIGHT POSSIBLY have been caused by something that the technology MIGHT POSSIBLY have been spewing into the environment that the victim MIGHT POSSIBLY have been exposed to long enough to die from it. Take cigarettes for example. The anti-tobacco lobby will increment the tobacco death count pretty much whenever somebody who has ever smoked a cigarette dies of lung cancer.
That being said, the numbers are still a somewhat reasonable way to compare the death tolls of various different technologies. And if the anti-nuclear lobby can't scrounge up enough deaths to make nuclear power appear more dangerous than fucking wind then it MUST be safe.
Look, if you're opposed to free speech just come out and say it. Don't hedge around with stuff about "responsibility" and "consequences". Any petty dictator can say "My people all have free speech. I expect that they will use it responsibly. If they do not, the consequences will be a bullet to the head".
The government cannot restrict your freedom to say whatever you want. If you wish to exercise your right to free speech by calling me an asshole for no reason, I will exercise my right to free speech by making a physical statement with a punch to the face.
("Freedom of speech" does not mean "freedom to speak." It means "Freedom to make statements" and statements aren't necessarily speech.)
Even worse is the growing trend to assume you want Spanish language pages because your IP address is geolocated in Spain, completely disregarding the Accept-Language HTTP header. Google and Facebook are both abusing their geolocation technology in this way, and probably others as well. Just because you have the technology to do something, doesn't make it a good idea, especially when there is an already existing method of dealing with language preference which is under control of the users. Google fanboys will pop up now and say that the unwashed masses don't know how to configure their browsers, so Google is doing them a favour, but the reality is that browsers on PCs sold to the unwashed masses in Spain will default to Spanish, so the existing standards based method is at least no worse than the geolocation assumption in predicting what language the user might want, and much easier to work around especially if you want to access those services anonymously.
Google provides automatic redirection to the unwashed masses based on geolocation and adds a very simple way to get around it for those who don't want it. Just Google it.
No, it shows a half-screen image stretched to the full height of the screen. You're still missing half your FOV and everything looks all wonky.
But with that you still have the problem of having a restricted view. With ACTUAL full-screen split-screen, you can see an entire screen's-worth of the playing field. With that workaround, you still only see half a view stretched over the entire screen. It does seem like a neat way to stop screen lookers though.
bank having to fill out FBI forms.
[citation needed]
Two wrongs do not make a good, but this was not totally uncalled for.
You don't "get back" at a corporation by stealing and releasing the personal information of tens of thousands of their customers. Regardless of your opinions about Sony, LulzSec are complete douchebags and deserve to be made Bubba's bitch posse in prison.
That sounds like dangerous stuff! Its an ACID!
I dropped some DNA last night and tripped some balls.
Of course after all the Californians move there
That's already happening, lol.
it won't be a low tax, low regulation state for long.
That's already happening, lol.
You can already download any EA release on release day with the EA Downloader and start playing immediately. I expect the other game distributors will soon follow suite.
You can download any release from almost ANY developer on Steam and start playing immediately. Plus, most games have a 10% preorder discount on Steam.
*sigh* MTV has destroyed a whole generation it seems.. I hope you're not one of those who believe that holding a steady shot for more than five seconds is boring.. Irreconcilable differences of opinion is where this will stand.. You're stepping on my pasto...
Absolutely not. If that was the case, I would have found the video we're discussing to be boring. MTV is absolute shit with regards to both their content and production value. Dissolves ARE boring, though, and way overused. This video does not need them. Why use them when they're not needed?
Well, I suppose that's true for those who only watch cop shows on the TV, but anybody with any sense for aesthetics will heartily disagree.
As a professional in the video production and broadcast industry, I will heartily disagree that people heartily disagree with my original point.
Cross-dissolves work in very specific circumstances. This video looked great with hard cuts. Cross-dissolves would look stupid.
Cross-dissolves are annoying and used only by people new to Windows Movie Maker.
If the plane has a bird strike and has to ditch in the Hudson, they don't want you to miss announcements because you're busy flinging Angry Birds.
So now the pilots are going to miss ATC instructions because they're busy flinging Angry Birds.