K Mart is lower on the chain than Wal-Mart. You're surprised that they've not updated the status of a product? I'm surprised the site actually has basic functionality.
"You can use a program to use a device in a manner it wasn't specifically built for, and doesn't include the same components that raise the cost, so the fact that it's cheaper is TOTALLY relevant, you meanie!"
Seriously, either compare phones to phones, or mp3 players to mp3 players. Theoretical devices do not count, faking functionality does not count.
I'm pretty sure I saw a breakdown of the parts/cost for the iPad, and it worked out to about $200 for the most expensive model, but that was off-the-shelf parts, rather than bulk from a distributor, so knock that down to about $100, I'd guess. Still more than your $35.
Also, interesting to note, stores like Staples sell at pretty much what the manufacturer sells to them at. That's why they push extended service plans and accessories, they're not making any profit off the laptop you're buying.
I dunno if you remember this, but google was originally loved by geeks not because of its awesome search results, but because the search page was clean and quick. Doing anything that kills that lowers Google's value as a search engine.
And for the record, Google is not free. Google allows you to use their search engine as compensation for helping them to improve their advertising model.
I'll go you one better. I think every legal notice should need to be written from scratch. There can be standardized language, but any and all legal notices should come from a lawyer, not a template or for-sale pre-written package. My reasons for wanting that have absolutely nothing to do with this story in any way, shape, or form, however. I want it so that there is greater specificity in legal notices given out, and that the merits are strongly considered before being issued.
Actually, why it works is there's two types of motivation:
1) Intrinsic, where you feel good because you did something, and take pride in the accomplishment.
2) Extrinsic, where someone else has placed value on the thing you did, and you take away that value, rather than the simple act of accomplishment.
Neither is inherently better than the other, and usually a combination of both is why people end up doing things. A paycheque is an example of extrinsic motivation, for instance.
Well, it can go in *any* bottle, rather than needing a special bottle, meaning that you don't need to worry about losing your special bottle in areas where social stability is ephemeral at best. So a filter that can go in any old bottle you have laying around, and can be made cheaply, and is small, yes, is innovative. Sometimes it's not about function, it's about form.
Dude, if you saw my mother, you wouldn't make that joke. She's fucking hideous, and a bitch to boot. You'd probably rather stick your dick in a blender than her mouth.
Actually, the blender's probably safer, too.
Re:Amazing lack of foresight here... 3d will win.
on
The Joke Known As 3D TV
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
If they can give a 3D experience without the glasses, I think a lot of 3D TV complaints would fall away, especially as content creators stopped treating it as a gimmick and more as the status quo. But until the shutter glasses are gone, I don't think it matters *how* cheap the glasses and TVs get, I just don't see it gaining much ground. The glasses just cause too many issues on their own. The easiest to point out, and the most difficult to hand-wave away is: what if I have a large group of people over to watch a movie, and I don't have enough glasses to go around? I'm a bachelor, so I really only need one pair of glasses. Should I really need to buy three, four, or more pairs to have hanging around for bad movie night? And when they're not being used, they're taking up more space, and can get lost or damaged without much notice. Oh joy. Then I have to hope that the battery doesn't die since I didn't charge the glasses since the last time they were used, because my friend just tossed them where I didn't notice. Then there's every other issue with the glasses that regularly comes up, which can probably be found elsewhere in the thread.
Remember, the public, above all else, wants convenience. That's why automatic transmissions became popular while they were still less efficient than manuals, why CDs were more popular than cassettes, why you can sell a person a $120 package to set up their new laptop that consists solely of running windows update and burning recovery CDs for them, why three-colour ink tanks in printers persist, and why HDTV took off once you could sell them the "complete" HD experience of the TV, the Blu-Ray player, and the High-Def cable package all at once.
Literally anyone in the western world can go see 3D TV for free, and probably HAS. You know why? Every big-box retailer in North America is pushing 3D TV by having nice big demo stations set up to convince people to spend that money. Claiming that anyone who dislikes 3D probably hasn't seen it is the height of several things, including but not limited to delusion and condescension, thinking that you're one of a privileged few who has gotten to sample this _wonderful_ technology.
You know, that's a damn good point. Generally, when you go to a movie, you're there to *watch* the movie, so you don't mind glasses on your face so much. But at home? What if I'm laying down? Got friends I wanna chat with while the show's on, and look at them while I chat? Look away to grab the phone? Get up to answer the door? Grab a snack? Go to the washroom? Grab the remote? Read a book during commercials/dull parts of the show? There's dozens of little moments while watching TV that you're not going to be looking directly at the TV, and so how annoying are the glasses going to be for that?
It's "clique." Not "click." You're obviously astroturfing, and you can't even be bothered to get the language right? You obviously aren't being paid enough. You also seem to forget that you're ON slashdot, while you're bitching about its community like you're not. At least with Mike260, I can check his posting history, see what kind of person he shows himself to be. You, Mr. AC, cannot be researched, so anything you say cannot be taken at face value without significant sources to back you up. Between trusting the guy who has a traceable history, and the guy randomly showing up to praise a technology by belittling everyone who dislikes it, I'd trust the guy with a history more.
However, trusting either of you doesn't preclude the ability to research and decide for myself. Just because Sony advertises it and pushes it, or Mike hates it doesn't mean that I have to go either way, whether I trust either party or not. So, you've got more than a few glaring logical fallacies and rhetorical failures, including ad hominem and false dichotomy. I thought they gave astroturfers some kind of script to follow, so they didn't fuck up and make the product look worse by association? If it meant supporting something you supported, I'd probably give up eating if you'd be posting in favour of that.
Yeah, and so has anyone who's taken 15 minutes at a local big box electronics retailer, since every single damned one of them has a TV set up in the back with some glasses chained to a podium.
Actually, it could work for a movie, and does regularly. Planes fly overhead, you hear them coming from "behind," then see them fly in to shot, and past. Background noise can be subtly piped through rear channels to add to immersion. It's something that takes careful planning and a damn good sound engineer to do well, but it can and does work. For a recording of a live concert, you'd want that kind of separation, again, for immersion. For a studio recording, an effect of a larger space could be given with a very slight echo. I'd not say any of that's really niche, since it could work for any movie or band that cared to incorporate it, as the application is broad enough in concept.
That said, I'd in no way endorse it becoming a part of every movie and music recording, and many wouldn't need it at all to be excellent, some could have used it to become better, and some would use it poorly, damaging the end product, just like 3D.
I got news for you, movies are STILL at the "3D for 3D's sake." Any movie converted to 3D via computer processing after the fact, rather than being filmed specifically for 3D qualifies on its own (The Last Airbender, Alice in Wonderland), as well as movies that still do the "poke shit at the screen" (Journey to the Center of the Earth with Brendan Fraiser, apparently). 3D TV won't be cruising past that point any time soon if it's taken decades for films, and they're still doing it any way.
Your very unclear assertions aside ("How's that ambiguous?" and "How would you misinterpret that one?" imply that you think the statement is straightforward and clear, but "Are you really so myopic to assert that it couldn't be more clear?" clearly states that you think it could be phrased in a less ambiguous manner, so I will proceed on the assumption you think it is a clear and straightforward statement):
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Thus, it can be easily interpreted that the people have the right to weapons, but the State is duty-bound to regulate those who do so, as those people are granted the right to carry arms in furtherance of maintaining a Militia. With this interpretation you have a clear mandate for government gun control (at the least by way of registration) and guidelines that anyone who owns a weapon can be called for military duty in defence of the nation. It also does not specify what arms except via way of linking it to said militia, so anything from a derringer to an ICBM would be acceptable for personal ownership, except that at the time of writing, a gun capable of launching hundreds of rounds a minute was not possible, so that's when we start getting in to social context and scientific advances.
So no, your example, while not horribly worded, is still an example of something open to interpretation. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Actually, I think it's slightly more general than just religious people looking for their big payoff. People in general dislike having their views challenged. Why? It's a bit more than just disliking being wrong. For little things, it's just resistance to change, and having to remember something different than you're used to. Larger things, however, tend to carry heavy implications when proven incorrect. A firmly held belief is something a person's based actions on. They've done things that they can't change because of that view. If all of a sudden that belief is wrong, then they have to think that maybe, just maybe, those things they've done are also wrong, and they should have done something else. Depending on a person's mentality, they simply can't cope with that level of "what if" and potential regrets. Those are the people who turn in to hardliners and fanatics, no matter what their belief system, since Christians (for example) go "Fuck, no God? I wasted every Sunday of my life in a stupid building, and what the fuck's going to happen to me when I die?", while atheists would go "Fuck, there's a God? Am I going to burn just because I didn't figure this out sooner?"
Quite often it's not the information that people resist, but the implications and duties that changing to reflect the new knowledge would come with.
Slashdot Mirror
They merely purged the heretics.
So what he said was true, from a certain point of view.
K Mart is lower on the chain than Wal-Mart. You're surprised that they've not updated the status of a product? I'm surprised the site actually has basic functionality.
"You can use a program to use a device in a manner it wasn't specifically built for, and doesn't include the same components that raise the cost, so the fact that it's cheaper is TOTALLY relevant, you meanie!"
Seriously, either compare phones to phones, or mp3 players to mp3 players. Theoretical devices do not count, faking functionality does not count.
I'm pretty sure I saw a breakdown of the parts/cost for the iPad, and it worked out to about $200 for the most expensive model, but that was off-the-shelf parts, rather than bulk from a distributor, so knock that down to about $100, I'd guess. Still more than your $35.
Also, interesting to note, stores like Staples sell at pretty much what the manufacturer sells to them at. That's why they push extended service plans and accessories, they're not making any profit off the laptop you're buying.
I dunno if you remember this, but google was originally loved by geeks not because of its awesome search results, but because the search page was clean and quick. Doing anything that kills that lowers Google's value as a search engine.
And for the record, Google is not free. Google allows you to use their search engine as compensation for helping them to improve their advertising model.
I'll go you one better. I think every legal notice should need to be written from scratch. There can be standardized language, but any and all legal notices should come from a lawyer, not a template or for-sale pre-written package. My reasons for wanting that have absolutely nothing to do with this story in any way, shape, or form, however. I want it so that there is greater specificity in legal notices given out, and that the merits are strongly considered before being issued.
Actually, why it works is there's two types of motivation:
1) Intrinsic, where you feel good because you did something, and take pride in the accomplishment.
2) Extrinsic, where someone else has placed value on the thing you did, and you take away that value, rather than the simple act of accomplishment.
Neither is inherently better than the other, and usually a combination of both is why people end up doing things. A paycheque is an example of extrinsic motivation, for instance.
Well, it can go in *any* bottle, rather than needing a special bottle, meaning that you don't need to worry about losing your special bottle in areas where social stability is ephemeral at best. So a filter that can go in any old bottle you have laying around, and can be made cheaply, and is small, yes, is innovative. Sometimes it's not about function, it's about form.
for cheaper too, so even if it worked as well as Brita, you'd still be saving money.
Yeah, theory and rhetoric often clash with reality.
Eet's joost a waifer theen filter.
Dude, if you saw my mother, you wouldn't make that joke. She's fucking hideous, and a bitch to boot. You'd probably rather stick your dick in a blender than her mouth.
Actually, the blender's probably safer, too.
If they can give a 3D experience without the glasses, I think a lot of 3D TV complaints would fall away, especially as content creators stopped treating it as a gimmick and more as the status quo. But until the shutter glasses are gone, I don't think it matters *how* cheap the glasses and TVs get, I just don't see it gaining much ground. The glasses just cause too many issues on their own. The easiest to point out, and the most difficult to hand-wave away is: what if I have a large group of people over to watch a movie, and I don't have enough glasses to go around? I'm a bachelor, so I really only need one pair of glasses. Should I really need to buy three, four, or more pairs to have hanging around for bad movie night? And when they're not being used, they're taking up more space, and can get lost or damaged without much notice. Oh joy. Then I have to hope that the battery doesn't die since I didn't charge the glasses since the last time they were used, because my friend just tossed them where I didn't notice. Then there's every other issue with the glasses that regularly comes up, which can probably be found elsewhere in the thread.
Remember, the public, above all else, wants convenience. That's why automatic transmissions became popular while they were still less efficient than manuals, why CDs were more popular than cassettes, why you can sell a person a $120 package to set up their new laptop that consists solely of running windows update and burning recovery CDs for them, why three-colour ink tanks in printers persist, and why HDTV took off once you could sell them the "complete" HD experience of the TV, the Blu-Ray player, and the High-Def cable package all at once.
Literally anyone in the western world can go see 3D TV for free, and probably HAS. You know why? Every big-box retailer in North America is pushing 3D TV by having nice big demo stations set up to convince people to spend that money. Claiming that anyone who dislikes 3D probably hasn't seen it is the height of several things, including but not limited to delusion and condescension, thinking that you're one of a privileged few who has gotten to sample this _wonderful_ technology.
You know, that's a damn good point. Generally, when you go to a movie, you're there to *watch* the movie, so you don't mind glasses on your face so much. But at home? What if I'm laying down? Got friends I wanna chat with while the show's on, and look at them while I chat? Look away to grab the phone? Get up to answer the door? Grab a snack? Go to the washroom? Grab the remote? Read a book during commercials/dull parts of the show? There's dozens of little moments while watching TV that you're not going to be looking directly at the TV, and so how annoying are the glasses going to be for that?
buzzword buzzword buzzword buzzword, buzzword buzzword? Buzzword!
It's "clique." Not "click." You're obviously astroturfing, and you can't even be bothered to get the language right? You obviously aren't being paid enough. You also seem to forget that you're ON slashdot, while you're bitching about its community like you're not. At least with Mike260, I can check his posting history, see what kind of person he shows himself to be. You, Mr. AC, cannot be researched, so anything you say cannot be taken at face value without significant sources to back you up. Between trusting the guy who has a traceable history, and the guy randomly showing up to praise a technology by belittling everyone who dislikes it, I'd trust the guy with a history more.
However, trusting either of you doesn't preclude the ability to research and decide for myself. Just because Sony advertises it and pushes it, or Mike hates it doesn't mean that I have to go either way, whether I trust either party or not. So, you've got more than a few glaring logical fallacies and rhetorical failures, including ad hominem and false dichotomy. I thought they gave astroturfers some kind of script to follow, so they didn't fuck up and make the product look worse by association? If it meant supporting something you supported, I'd probably give up eating if you'd be posting in favour of that.
Yeah, and so has anyone who's taken 15 minutes at a local big box electronics retailer, since every single damned one of them has a TV set up in the back with some glasses chained to a podium.
Damn hippies. *shakes fist*
Actually, they'll just use the same craptastic way that theatres solved the problem. Slightly LARGER glasses that go on over your own.
Actually, it could work for a movie, and does regularly. Planes fly overhead, you hear them coming from "behind," then see them fly in to shot, and past. Background noise can be subtly piped through rear channels to add to immersion. It's something that takes careful planning and a damn good sound engineer to do well, but it can and does work. For a recording of a live concert, you'd want that kind of separation, again, for immersion. For a studio recording, an effect of a larger space could be given with a very slight echo. I'd not say any of that's really niche, since it could work for any movie or band that cared to incorporate it, as the application is broad enough in concept.
That said, I'd in no way endorse it becoming a part of every movie and music recording, and many wouldn't need it at all to be excellent, some could have used it to become better, and some would use it poorly, damaging the end product, just like 3D.
I got news for you, movies are STILL at the "3D for 3D's sake." Any movie converted to 3D via computer processing after the fact, rather than being filmed specifically for 3D qualifies on its own (The Last Airbender, Alice in Wonderland), as well as movies that still do the "poke shit at the screen" (Journey to the Center of the Earth with Brendan Fraiser, apparently). 3D TV won't be cruising past that point any time soon if it's taken decades for films, and they're still doing it any way.
You know, I'm glad a publisher's trying to get Duke Nukem Forever out the door again. It allows such timeless jokes like this one to continue.
Your very unclear assertions aside ("How's that ambiguous?" and "How would you misinterpret that one?" imply that you think the statement is straightforward and clear, but "Are you really so myopic to assert that it couldn't be more clear?" clearly states that you think it could be phrased in a less ambiguous manner, so I will proceed on the assumption you think it is a clear and straightforward statement):
The text of the second amendment is (from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/ ):
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Thus, it can be easily interpreted that the people have the right to weapons, but the State is duty-bound to regulate those who do so, as those people are granted the right to carry arms in furtherance of maintaining a Militia. With this interpretation you have a clear mandate for government gun control (at the least by way of registration) and guidelines that anyone who owns a weapon can be called for military duty in defence of the nation. It also does not specify what arms except via way of linking it to said militia, so anything from a derringer to an ICBM would be acceptable for personal ownership, except that at the time of writing, a gun capable of launching hundreds of rounds a minute was not possible, so that's when we start getting in to social context and scientific advances.
So no, your example, while not horribly worded, is still an example of something open to interpretation. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Actually, I think it's slightly more general than just religious people looking for their big payoff. People in general dislike having their views challenged. Why? It's a bit more than just disliking being wrong. For little things, it's just resistance to change, and having to remember something different than you're used to. Larger things, however, tend to carry heavy implications when proven incorrect. A firmly held belief is something a person's based actions on. They've done things that they can't change because of that view. If all of a sudden that belief is wrong, then they have to think that maybe, just maybe, those things they've done are also wrong, and they should have done something else. Depending on a person's mentality, they simply can't cope with that level of "what if" and potential regrets. Those are the people who turn in to hardliners and fanatics, no matter what their belief system, since Christians (for example) go "Fuck, no God? I wasted every Sunday of my life in a stupid building, and what the fuck's going to happen to me when I die?", while atheists would go "Fuck, there's a God? Am I going to burn just because I didn't figure this out sooner?"
Quite often it's not the information that people resist, but the implications and duties that changing to reflect the new knowledge would come with.