As someone with four younger brothers, I know why my folks buy VHS rather than DVD: durability. The primary problem with DVDs is the fragility of the medium. An 6-year-old can manage a VHS change fairly proficiently, but, given that dropping a DVD on a hard surface can irreparably damage it, wouldn't likely be allowed near DVDs.
Additionally, children are not nearly as likely to be very critical of signal quality issues. The parents of said children then would be less likely to purchase DVDs over VHS, given the elimination of this DVD advantage, and the difference in retail price.
The emergence of affordable media without the durability downside will displace DVD and VHS soon enough, but DVDs will never succeed in eliminating their magnetic media competition. In addition to the durability issue, memory cards are easily recordable and reusable (a trait in which they surpass VHS's diminishing capabilities in this area).
Until those prices come down a bit more, look for WalMart and other family-savvy retailers to keep people on both sides of the fence happy with available substitutes.
This is all moot. "tradition liberals" is better rendered "classical liberals", i.e. the Austrian School of Free Maeket economics (Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Hoppe, et al.). This has little to do with Democrats and Republicans.
I'm a librarian at the Mises Istitute as awell as a long-time (8 years) Slashdot reader. I just wanted to inform folks that the Mises Institute does some really cutting edge work on the legitimacy of Intellectual Property. If you are interested, google "Stephan Kinsella" "Against Intellectual Property". I have also written a paper that touches on the economics of this issue, and how the hacker community has been an incredibly influential market factor. It is located here.
Maybe this explains why cops get off on cracking the skulls of those they perceive as violating the social order. The article seems to support this as its thesis, rather than pure revenge. It talks about the same satisfying sensation from not allowing people to cut you off in traffic.
If I remember correctly, there was a panel at Summercon 99 where Decius presented the concept for shoes like these as part of a presentation on a peculiar type of bio-encryption. His idea involved sending a security key to various objects (like a doorknob) via low power electricity oscillations sent across the skin. He suggested using piezo-electric generators in shoes as a power source.
His idea was to use this system of information transmission to enable data-rich handshakes (using connected HUDs) among other things.
I am not even going to argue about the acting, but I don't think you know what goof acting is. It sounds to me like you just heard someone say that Keanu couldn't act, and then you repeated it and expanded it.
Where you said that you have seen all the special effects before, you really showed your ignorance. If you cannot differentiate between the special effects in HK action flicks that preceded the Matrix, and the Matrix, you don't know what to look for.
You claim to have some philosophy education. Well, I do to. That is my primary field of study. What exactly is it that reeks of beginner philosophy? Obviously, the whole movie is a variation on the "Brain in a Vat" hypothesis, which is really just a rehash of Descartes "Deceptive Demon". That is an example used to explain why skeptics are skeptics. If you can give a good explanation as to why that hypothesis is not a good one, please let me know, because I know a lot of philosophical skeptics who would really like to hear it.
The movie is an action flick with Science Fiction as its plot generator. That is it. It is a relatively simple idea (hence the broad appeal) that was implemented well, and made to be entertaining.
To answer your primary question, I think most people were excited about the idea of an interesting story, acted out by quite a few fresh faces, with never-before-seen special effects.
Finally, I must say that a story doesn't have to be philosophically deep to be meaningful. The American Revolution was about not wanting to pay taxes on paper and tea, among other things of that sort, and the Cuban Missile Crisis was about not wanting big freaking missiles pointed at us. These are not particulary deep (read "convoluted") stories, but they are important issues. They were to the people at the time, and they are today. Take that into consideration the next time you criticize something because you aren't the only one who can understand it.
In America, we have the right to freely associate in public places. Unless the scene is that of a crime or as a matter of public safety must be evacuated, the police cannot just tell people to leave. Well, I guess they can, but it isn't a legal request.
In the case of a Riot, where there is destruction of property, I would assume that the police could of course demand that people leave. But it may be the case that some of those who remained were not guilty of a criminal act other than just being there, and therefore wouldn't be committing any more than a very minor misdemeanor.
Insofar as your statement that there is no right or expectatiobn of privacy in public, that is true to a certain extent. Pictures of a crowd are very different from pictures of one individual, who does not wish to be photographed specifically. When you single someone out, that, in my opinion, violates their right to privacy (assuming they are not committing a crime).
Another thing to be considered is the possiblity that some of the crowd might not have been students, and were perhaps as young as 15 years old. If that is the case, it would be illegal to publish pictures of them in relation to a crime (Juveniles are protected specifically against this sort of thing by Federal Statute).
Japan has a much more tightly inhabited land mass, with more appropriate infrastructure, and virtually no distance to wire. Less overhead almost always equals lower costs to the consumer. So, in other words, I am buying an island and getting fiber EVERYTHING.
okay, this is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. Franklin was definitely a capitalist. Capitalists don't necessarily agree with patent laws. I should know, as I am very much in favor of free markets, but yet I believe that patent laws are wrong (they discourage this).
I am tired of this Marxist bullshit that people constantly spout about capitalism being about greed. Maybe a lot of capitalists ARE greedy, but capitalism is more about being able to EARN what you get, rather than have someone give it to you. Capitalism encourages innovation a lot more than Marxism.
What are the chances that a media group other than Slashdot will report on this. If NBC, or another major network reported on this, this would have a HUGE impact on the public opinion of the RIAA. Let's get this information out, folks.
Actually, you can neither prove nor disprove something. You can just accumulate evidence that makes one idea more likely than another. You cannot "prove" that you are sitting at your computer reading this. You believe though, and you should. Belief can't be based solely on provable ideas. If they were you would be very hungry, because you wouldn't be eating very often...
Okay, so you are a gap theorist. You could have just said that. Thanks.
Btw, History books don't necessarily say what year an event took place. The book might just say that it happened two years prior to something else. Most people can do the math. And that is more or less how the young earth folks came to the 6000 year number. Through geneologies. Do a search for Ussher if you want a more precise answer.
Roman Catholics aren't exactly Christian, IMHO. Christians are commanded in several different places in the New Testament to question EVERYTHING. Critical thought is an essential part of truly Biblical Christianity. By the way, I am a Christian, and also a philosophical skeptic. If you don't believe me, go read some of the essays at godhatescalvinists.com.
I don't know any creationists who believe that dinosaurs are a hoax. In fact, every creationist I know believes they are described in the Bible, in Job 40 and Job 41.
Excuse me, but evolution "science" is not science. At least not the same way that physics is science. Can you observe evolution? REmember, I am not asking about natural selection. I am not asking about so-called similarities between species. I am asking you to show me the observable evolution.
See, if you cannot observe something, you can't really claim that you know anything about it. All the information in science comes from observation. What sort of experements have been done to show evolution occurred? Wait, here is a better question - What sort of experiments CAN be done to show evolution occurred? The answer is that there aren't any. Your belief in evolution is just as much about faith as my belief in Creation theory.
Now then, as for your rant against religions, note that it isn't really like there are two sets of people - "religious folk" and "non-religious folk". Everyone has his or her own religion. It is just a matter of what you value the most. That thing is the object of your worship. So don't pretend that you lack religion.
Don't try to lump all so-called "Christians" together. I own the domain godhatescalvinists.com, which intentionally pokes fun at Fred Phelps. He bases his beliefs in Calvinism, and I think his beliefs are heretical. I am a Christian. He claims to be. I don't think he is. If you want to understand something, the proper approach is not to insult it. The proper approach is to study it. Science should have taught you that.
One of the most laughable of your statements is that "...science, while not perfect, has greatly advanced the human condition, and is the root cause of far less of the world's wars than religion." Oh really? Well maybe that is because organized has been around for something like TWENTY-TIMES longer! Another possibility is that science causes fewer wars because it is simply a means unto an end, not an end unto itself. Religion is is own end in most cases. It tells the believer how to live, and what to live for.
Oh, and remember that on the side of science you have such fun-loving murderers as Lenin, Stalin, and every Red leader in China since the revolution. It was YOUR kind of intolerance that made those massacres possible. You are the one that tries to take away people's rights. Your post is a classic example. First, you tried to make religion seem like a threat, and then you started in with the inflammatory rhetoric. Rather than try an build a solid argument on any one issue, you simply laid out a bunch of premises, demanding that they be accepted. Doesn't sound to scientific to me.
Oh, and don't forget what science is - it is simply a method of inquiry. It is just a standard of judging things. Where did it come from? Oh yeah, philosophy. Philosophy (specifically Epistemology) is the discipline that helps us decide how to know what to accept. The scientific method is simply a by-product.
I can give you a dozen reasons why the scientific method cannot yield truth. If you want to hear them, email me. I don't think you will though. Why? Because you have made a choice to accept science because you find it useful. Okay, no problem. That is your decision, but you must understand that your choice is an arbitrary one. Just like a decision to believe in a particular religion.
I think the whole point of this new "cyber-court" (ugh, generic prefixes...) is to have a court that is "specially equipped" to deal with issues that new technology creates.
Of course, it seems like it would be better to just have a judge that understands technology issues, but if they want to allow "cyber-commuting" (argh! That prefix again!), I guess that is a novel idea (for court anyway).
Could I please get an example of a gamble that ISN'T on a variable? It seems like the object of the bet HAS to be be on something with various possible outcomes, otherwise it is a SURE THING. Business is NEVER a sure thing. Capitalism is always about making a better bet than the next guy. That is what makes it fun (oh yeah, and the personal freedom it entails...).
You know, the real question about genetic engineering in general is whether or not society can really be responsible with the awesome power of actually 'understanding' genetic material. I am really not very optimistic about us right now folks.
On that note, it makes me breathe a sigh of relief that genticists won't be able to just 'select' against autism, various neurophysiological conditions, etc...
Gattaca seems to be falling behind schedule, and I am pretty much okay with that.
Slashdot Mirror
As someone with four younger brothers, I know why my folks buy VHS rather than DVD: durability. The primary problem with DVDs is the fragility of the medium. An 6-year-old can manage a VHS change fairly proficiently, but, given that dropping a DVD on a hard surface can irreparably damage it, wouldn't likely be allowed near DVDs.
Additionally, children are not nearly as likely to be very critical of signal quality issues. The parents of said children then would be less likely to purchase DVDs over VHS, given the elimination of this DVD advantage, and the difference in retail price.
The emergence of affordable media without the durability downside will displace DVD and VHS soon enough, but DVDs will never succeed in eliminating their magnetic media competition. In addition to the durability issue, memory cards are easily recordable and reusable (a trait in which they surpass VHS's diminishing capabilities in this area).
Until those prices come down a bit more, look for WalMart and other family-savvy retailers to keep people on both sides of the fence happy with available substitutes.
This is all moot. "tradition liberals" is better rendered "classical liberals", i.e. the Austrian School of Free Maeket economics (Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Hoppe, et al.). This has little to do with Democrats and Republicans.
I'm a librarian at the Mises Istitute as awell as a long-time (8 years) Slashdot reader. I just wanted to inform folks that the Mises Institute does some really cutting edge work on the legitimacy of Intellectual Property. If you are interested, google "Stephan Kinsella" "Against Intellectual Property". I have also written a paper that touches on the economics of this issue, and how the hacker community has been an incredibly influential market factor. It is located here.
Maybe this explains why cops get off on cracking the skulls of those they perceive as violating the social order. The article seems to support this as its thesis, rather than pure revenge. It talks about the same satisfying sensation from not allowing people to cut you off in traffic.
Cops are just pleasure junkies after all!
Qba'g or n fgngvfg! Nanepub-pncvgnyvfz vf orfg.
His idea was to use this system of information transmission to enable data-rich handshakes (using connected HUDs) among other things.
Where you said that you have seen all the special effects before, you really showed your ignorance. If you cannot differentiate between the special effects in HK action flicks that preceded the Matrix, and the Matrix, you don't know what to look for.
You claim to have some philosophy education. Well, I do to. That is my primary field of study. What exactly is it that reeks of beginner philosophy? Obviously, the whole movie is a variation on the "Brain in a Vat" hypothesis, which is really just a rehash of Descartes "Deceptive Demon". That is an example used to explain why skeptics are skeptics. If you can give a good explanation as to why that hypothesis is not a good one, please let me know, because I know a lot of philosophical skeptics who would really like to hear it.
The movie is an action flick with Science Fiction as its plot generator. That is it. It is a relatively simple idea (hence the broad appeal) that was implemented well, and made to be entertaining.
To answer your primary question, I think most people were excited about the idea of an interesting story, acted out by quite a few fresh faces, with never-before-seen special effects.
Finally, I must say that a story doesn't have to be philosophically deep to be meaningful. The American Revolution was about not wanting to pay taxes on paper and tea, among other things of that sort, and the Cuban Missile Crisis was about not wanting big freaking missiles pointed at us. These are not particulary deep (read "convoluted") stories, but they are important issues. They were to the people at the time, and they are today. Take that into consideration the next time you criticize something because you aren't the only one who can understand it.
Jaeger
www.JohnQHacker.com
GodHatesCalvinists.com
In the case of a Riot, where there is destruction of property, I would assume that the police could of course demand that people leave. But it may be the case that some of those who remained were not guilty of a criminal act other than just being there, and therefore wouldn't be committing any more than a very minor misdemeanor.
Insofar as your statement that there is no right or expectatiobn of privacy in public, that is true to a certain extent. Pictures of a crowd are very different from pictures of one individual, who does not wish to be photographed specifically. When you single someone out, that, in my opinion, violates their right to privacy (assuming they are not committing a crime).
Another thing to be considered is the possiblity that some of the crowd might not have been students, and were perhaps as young as 15 years old. If that is the case, it would be illegal to publish pictures of them in relation to a crime (Juveniles are protected specifically against this sort of thing by Federal Statute).
Jaeger
www.JohnQHacker.com
GodHatesCalvinists.com
Japan has a much more tightly inhabited land mass, with more appropriate infrastructure, and virtually no distance to wire. Less overhead almost always equals lower costs to the consumer. So, in other words, I am buying an island and getting fiber EVERYTHING.
Jaeger
www.JohnQHacker.com
GodHatesCalvinists.com
I am tired of this Marxist bullshit that people constantly spout about capitalism being about greed. Maybe a lot of capitalists ARE greedy, but capitalism is more about being able to EARN what you get, rather than have someone give it to you. Capitalism encourages innovation a lot more than Marxism.
Jaeger
www.JohnQHacker.com
GodHatesCalvinists.com
The material in question is not unlawful UNTIL it reaches the destination server. On the originating server it can be presumed to be fair use.
Jaeger
www.JohnQHacker.com
GodHatesCalvinists.com
Well, Spanish Bible makes had better batten down the hatches!
Jaeger
www.JohnQHacker.com
GodHatesCalvinists.com
What are the chances that a media group other than Slashdot will report on this. If NBC, or another major network reported on this, this would have a HUGE impact on the public opinion of the RIAA. Let's get this information out, folks.
Jaeger
www.JohnQHacker.com
GodHatesCalvinists.com
I am definitely not beta-testing. What if there is a GPF?
Jaeger
www.JohnQHacker.com
GodHatesCalvinists.com
Actually, you can neither prove nor disprove something. You can just accumulate evidence that makes one idea more likely than another. You cannot "prove" that you are sitting at your computer reading this. You believe though, and you should. Belief can't be based solely on provable ideas. If they were you would be very hungry, because you wouldn't be eating very often...
Jaeger
www.JohnQHacker.com
GodHatesCalvinists.com
Btw, History books don't necessarily say what year an event took place. The book might just say that it happened two years prior to something else. Most people can do the math. And that is more or less how the young earth folks came to the 6000 year number. Through geneologies. Do a search for Ussher if you want a more precise answer.
Jaeger
www.JohnQHacker.com
GodHatesCalvinists.com
Roman Catholics aren't exactly Christian, IMHO. Christians are commanded in several different places in the New Testament to question EVERYTHING. Critical thought is an essential part of truly Biblical Christianity. By the way, I am a Christian, and also a philosophical skeptic. If you don't believe me, go read some of the essays at godhatescalvinists.com.
Jaeger
www.JohnQHacker.com
GodHatesCalvinists.com
I don't know any creationists who believe that dinosaurs are a hoax. In fact, every creationist I know believes they are described in the Bible, in Job 40 and Job 41.
Jaeger
www.JohnQHacker.com
GodHatesCalvinists.com
See, if you cannot observe something, you can't really claim that you know anything about it. All the information in science comes from observation. What sort of experements have been done to show evolution occurred? Wait, here is a better question - What sort of experiments CAN be done to show evolution occurred? The answer is that there aren't any. Your belief in evolution is just as much about faith as my belief in Creation theory.
Now then, as for your rant against religions, note that it isn't really like there are two sets of people - "religious folk" and "non-religious folk". Everyone has his or her own religion. It is just a matter of what you value the most. That thing is the object of your worship. So don't pretend that you lack religion.
Don't try to lump all so-called "Christians" together. I own the domain godhatescalvinists.com, which intentionally pokes fun at Fred Phelps. He bases his beliefs in Calvinism, and I think his beliefs are heretical. I am a Christian. He claims to be. I don't think he is. If you want to understand something, the proper approach is not to insult it. The proper approach is to study it. Science should have taught you that.
One of the most laughable of your statements is that "...science, while not perfect, has greatly advanced the human condition, and is the root cause of far less of the world's wars than religion." Oh really? Well maybe that is because organized has been around for something like TWENTY-TIMES longer! Another possibility is that science causes fewer wars because it is simply a means unto an end, not an end unto itself. Religion is is own end in most cases. It tells the believer how to live, and what to live for.
Oh, and remember that on the side of science you have such fun-loving murderers as Lenin, Stalin, and every Red leader in China since the revolution. It was YOUR kind of intolerance that made those massacres possible. You are the one that tries to take away people's rights. Your post is a classic example. First, you tried to make religion seem like a threat, and then you started in with the inflammatory rhetoric. Rather than try an build a solid argument on any one issue, you simply laid out a bunch of premises, demanding that they be accepted. Doesn't sound to scientific to me.
Oh, and don't forget what science is - it is simply a method of inquiry. It is just a standard of judging things. Where did it come from? Oh yeah, philosophy. Philosophy (specifically Epistemology) is the discipline that helps us decide how to know what to accept. The scientific method is simply a by-product.
I can give you a dozen reasons why the scientific method cannot yield truth. If you want to hear them, email me. I don't think you will though. Why? Because you have made a choice to accept science because you find it useful. Okay, no problem. That is your decision, but you must understand that your choice is an arbitrary one. Just like a decision to believe in a particular religion.
Jaeger
www.JohnQHacker.com
GodHatesCalvinists.com
http://bob.dy.kz/AYB.swf
Jaeger
www.JohnQHacker.com
GodHatesCalvinists.com
What you say!
Jaeger
www.JohnQHacker.com
GodHatesCalvinists.com
Of course, it seems like it would be better to just have a judge that understands technology issues, but if they want to allow "cyber-commuting" (argh! That prefix again!), I guess that is a novel idea (for court anyway).
Jaeger
www.JohnQHacker.com
GodHatesCalvinists.com
Could I please get an example of a gamble that ISN'T on a variable? It seems like the object of the bet HAS to be be on something with various possible outcomes, otherwise it is a SURE THING. Business is NEVER a sure thing. Capitalism is always about making a better bet than the next guy. That is what makes it fun (oh yeah, and the personal freedom it entails...).
Jaeger
www.JohnQHacker.com
GodHatesCalvinists.com
wasn't it ALWAYS someone else's code?
Jaeger
www.JohnQHacker.com
GodHatesCalvinists.com
On that note, it makes me breathe a sigh of relief that genticists won't be able to just 'select' against autism, various neurophysiological conditions, etc...
Gattaca seems to be falling behind schedule, and I am pretty much okay with that.
Jaeger
www.JohnQHacker.com
GodHatesCalvinists.com