As for the features? Does anyone really watch those anyway?
The only one I consistently look for (and am sad if it's not there) is the gag reel, a.k.a. outtakes.
I find it fun to see what the actors are like 'out of the role', yet not primping for the camera like they do on those god-awful entertainment shows and for the media. It seems you get the most natural reaction from them right after they've flubbed a line or walk-on...plus it's fun to laugh along with them at those inevitable Murphy's Law moments that afflict any large project.
That being said, gag reels and outtakes were available almost since DVD got started, so it's not exactly an argument to move to Blu-Ray either...unless more space means they include the outtakes more often? I haven't observed that to be the case so far...
For a lot of people - like me - music isn't all that important. [...] Perhaps when you manage to look beyond your own situation you will see that Spotify for many people no longer makes sense.
I don't think Spotify should be basing their pricing around what appeals to people who don't have much interest in music.;)
True...but if they are pricing themselves out of the casual listeners ballpark, yet adding restrictions to the extent that the ad-supported service is...well...useless, then they are effectively narrowing their revenue stream to only those people who do listen to music all day every day.
What percentage of the population is that, I wonder?
I know you can't have a magentic field without an electric field, but is that really a two-way relationship?
Actually, you can't. A magnetic field induces an electric field across conductive elements proportional to its strength and the conductors' position relative to the magnetic field (and the right hand rule, of course). It's the basis for many measurement tools.
The reason you don't constantly get zapped by the earth's magnetic field is that a) it's pretty weak, and b) you're not that great a conductor (sorry if I dashed some dreams there)
If you were silly enough to hug a strong enough electromagnet, you could theoretically die by electrocution since the induced voltage across your body could be large enough to induce significant current flow.
It would also prevent the ISPs from blocking rival video streaming sites because "they suck up too much bandwidth" etc.
Sorry? I thought this proposal was saying that nobody can *force* the ISPs through the courts to block arbitrary content without an actual law *requiring* all ISPs to block it (such as child-pron). I didn't see anything in there stating that ISP's can't voluntarily and arbitrarily choose to filter content on their own initiative...but IANAL, maybe I missed it...
It's not the cost, it's the principle of the thing.
I know I was royally pissed off when I found out that I could only access my bought-and-paid-for Netflix account through my bought-and-paid-for XBox console if I kept bribing M$oft every month for a useless-to-me-because-I-don't-game-online 'Gold' account...no.
I wonder why Netflix ever agreed to that, since it only hurts their own user base. Sure, I have and use other devices that stream Netflix without additional cost, and I suppose others do too, so I guess Netflix probably isn't actually hurting because of this, but still... When I was looking around for a Netflix-capable media center solution for some less tech-savvy friends and relatives, I seriously considered recommending the XBox because of it's reasonable media capabilities and 'plug and play' form factor, until I found out about this particular racket...so I guess M$oft lost a bit more than $30 per year in that instance. Of course, the constant stream of revenue from those who find value in being able to play with irritating 12YO flamers probably more than makes up for it...
Yes in a way we CAN blame it on the government, because it ultimately comes down to "can you baby proof the world?". Because as someone who cleans these things for a living I can tell you a good 90% of infections are from users being dumbasses and NOTHING else.
Frankly, so what? The question isn't "whose fault is it", the question is "how do we stop it".
But the granddaddy question of them all is "how do we stop it without penalizing the other 90% of the world who are not dumbasses."
I believe that's what the GP was getting at.
(and I know, 90% is a pretty optimistic number, but anything else is just depressing...)
... nor do humans traverse every post made by every user.
...unless they have a fistful of mod points to spend...heck, sometimes I'm just very interested in a story and want to see what everyone has to say about it. True, that doesn't happen often, and I certainly don't read 10 posts a second, but it does happen...
It's a big deal to discover that something you thought was infallible has errors. Then what? If it has one big error , how many more are there?
Hmmm...sounds very much like the IPCC's AR4. But that was written by the hand of man, not god. Oh, wait...
Every document on earth has an agenda, which is built into it by the people who write it. Really, is there any other reason to write, other than to share your worldview with others in hopes of convincing them to adjust their perspectives to match yours? Even entertainment writing tries to convince people to adjust their consciousness based on (sometimes) hidden themes and allegories. Writing for the purposes of advertising is a bit more blatant, in that it directly tries to tell you exactly what you should believe (Brand X is teh BESTEST!!! ZOMG, buy it NOWEZ!!!).
Scientific writings are no different, other than in one crucial point: they do (or should, if they're reputable) invite others to present evidence that refutes their conclusions. If their conclusions are disproved, they then (again, if they're reputable) seek to find out why, and adjust their conclusions accordingly rather than attacking the person who presented the evidence and calling them names. Like 'heretic' or 'witch' or 'denier'.
I know, it's not open source, and it's only available for Windoze, but it's pretty darn flexible and there's tons of user support and user-created plugins. And the interface is much simpler than GIMP, I find...
...after installing some software, users will be able to control various onscreen actions by looking at, blinking at, or fixing your gaze on an object.
So what, two blinks is a double-click? A wink is a right click? What about when our eyes are just plain dry?
This could get disorienting real fast...I'm not saying it's not good for some special circumstances, but IMHO people just aren't as consistent with their eyes as they are with their hands. Even while typing this, I'm looking around my desktop, checking my notification icons, etc. (ooh, I have mail) It would be disconcerting if my cursor were jumping right along with me, and downright frustrating if it shifted focus off of the text editor because I blinked at the wrong time...
...but I love the smell of irony in the morning...afternoon...whatever.
It kinda reminds me of that NOMEX factory that burned down...well, isn't that odd. I remember hearing about that at a safety meeting a couple of years ago, but now I can't find any links to post, none at all...was it all a dream? A deliciously ironic dream?
(I could only wish my dreams were more exciting than creating my own safety meetings in my head...*sigh*)
Is it leaving someone alone to say they need a cure for their sexual orientation?
Is it leaving someone alone to bombard them with advertising for diets / weight loss 'cures'? I wonder how many calorie-counting, BMI calculating or other unhealthily-skinny-promoting apps are on the Apple marketplace, especially targeting women and young girls? Perhaps a petition is needed...
My point is, this app expresses an opinion. There are other things that you could do with apps that could facilitate action, but (as far as I can find, anyways) this one expresses a simple, albeit misguided, opinion. It is not running around self-downloading onto phones, or performing any other action unless the user invites it in with the overt action of downloading the app.
You mention morality as a justification, but morality is a socio-religious construct. In some parts of the world, it is not considered moral for women to leave their hair or faces exposed, is it therefore 'wrong' to do so? Of course not? Why, then, is it 'wrong' to expose the rest of one's body in public except under certain restricted conditions? Who, exactly, does it hurt (well, other than the exposee if it's bloody cold out)?
The law is a series of rules with loose policy justifications. It is entirely possible for someone to act within the law and still be doing something they should not do.
[emphasis added]
Such as having gay sex? Or having sex before marriage? How about overeating? Who defines 'should'? IMHO, laws should exist solely to determine where your fist ends and my face begins. Unfortunately, law-makers are human, therefore laws are often flawed. As far as I'm concerned, as long as your statements or actions do not impede my life or freedom, you are fully entitled to them, as are others. You are free to try to make me feel guilty or abnormal by expressing your opinion, and I am free to argue with and/or ignore you and those like you (e.g.: christian world-view vs.atheistic world-view).
That's a thought. Would people have been so upset if an 'Atheist Cure' app were released? How about a 'Christian Cure' app? True, these are belief-based, not physical 'conditions', but these hypothetical apps would still simply be supporting an opinion: that the 'condition' in question is wrong and needs to be 'cured'.
That was precisely my thought. Who would actually download this app, other than perhaps as a practical joke on a buddy's unguarded phone? I'd be curious to see the actual d/l numbers on this app before Apple killed it.
I'm also curious how it proposed to 'cure' homosexuality? Scrolling vajayjay and boob photos? (or dick photos, for those ladies in the audience?) Providing random "it's okay not to be gay" messages and bible quotations? Showing gruesome pics of AIDS patients with "this could be YOU" captions, like they essentially do for smokers now? The first method might actually pull in some downloads, but probably not from the demographic they propose to be targeting...and would be uber-strange for a so-called 'christian' group to support...
What a pity they didn't think to make the original app configurable. [...] You then have a universal panacea that's equally worthless at curing every conceivable condition. Much more flexible.
Excellent idea! I wonder how well it would fail on "Curing Shortness"? Or "Curing big-nosedness"? How about "Curing Cancer"?
Apple just likes to pretend it's God, that doesn't necessarily make it so...trouble is, sheeple keep acting as if it is, in fact, divine...
There are also a lot of people who think it's wrong to think "gay-ness" needs a cure. That teaches that it is a choice that needs "curing", and most of apple's target demographic finds that idea wrong.
Hmm...so what's apple's target demographic's position on emotional exploding birds? For or against? Is this a lesson we really want our children to take in?
Just because it's an app, doesn't make it frigging gospel. If it offends you, develop a 'Straight cure' app.
Oh, and btw, I find it quite offensive when people are offended 'on behalf of' other people who they've never met and never asked if they find it offensive or not. I don't much care for the app, I think it's unnecessary and quite tacky, but I'm not going to get all up in arms about it unless one of my friends who happen to be gay tells me this hurts or offends them personally. Perhaps you have heard such comments from your homosexual friends, in which case you have every right to be offended on their behalf. If, however, you've heard these comments from your straight friends, or from random people on discussion forums, then please get your head out of your arse.
Oh, and as for your little sarcasm fest above: The first point is ridiculous, since denying a person employment based on the colour of their skin is an action that violates that person's human rights. The employer can think what they like, as long as they act within the law. And the second point...are you proposing thought policing now? If some misguided soul thinks it would have been better if your GPs died in the holocaust, well, they do have the right to think that. They just don't have the right to cause you harm, or incite others to cause harm to you, because then it would violate your human rights.
People don't have the right to be liked, just to be free and safe from harm and generally left alone to live their lives how they choose. By the same reasoning, idiots who judge an entire group of people based on their nationality, gender, religion or sexual orientation have the right to nurture their cherished preconceptions in their otherwise empty skulls, as long as they don't act on them in a way that will violate another's human rights.
Frig! Even I didn't see this, and it's a reply to my own post! (Thanks, btw)
The only way I could see this reply is by clicking the 'get x more comments' a dozen times or so, to load the entire discussion history. You may ask, Why? Answer: to see what happens.
Well, here we go. This is what happens. I get to see comments completely lost to the void.
(Do notifications for AC replies not work now, btw? Seriously, I didn't even get a reply notification for this one...)
Yikes! That's alotta script, just to see the parent comments!
But yeah, it would be nice if Slashdot would make a "selected" comment automatically open its parent comments. You know, so you could actually see it. And this applies to "unread" comments that get opened by keyboard navigation shortcuts, too...
You got that right. I also wouldn't mind seeing at least the stubs of all replies to a selected comment...right now, if two or more people reply to a comment, we have to play the "let's find the reply" game on each one individually...it's as painful as having to connect phone calls one at a time through an old-fashioned switchboard, when what I really come here for is the cool conference call features...
Does anyone who re-designed this site, use this site?
The evidence would suggest not, unless the admin interface is substantially different (and less buggy) than the casual user interface...
Thanks for the tip on the slider, by the way! I hadn't bothered to try it, since it was always showing full comments even when the only comment visible was the root. Grabbing it and wiggling it back and forth to shake open the tree sure saves a lot of clicks, but still doesn't help my poor, poor scroll wheel...
Slashdot Mirror
As for the features? Does anyone really watch those anyway?
The only one I consistently look for (and am sad if it's not there) is the gag reel, a.k.a. outtakes.
I find it fun to see what the actors are like 'out of the role', yet not primping for the camera like they do on those god-awful entertainment shows and for the media. It seems you get the most natural reaction from them right after they've flubbed a line or walk-on...plus it's fun to laugh along with them at those inevitable Murphy's Law moments that afflict any large project.
That being said, gag reels and outtakes were available almost since DVD got started, so it's not exactly an argument to move to Blu-Ray either...unless more space means they include the outtakes more often? I haven't observed that to be the case so far...
For a lot of people - like me - music isn't all that important. [...] Perhaps when you manage to look beyond your own situation you will see that Spotify for many people no longer makes sense.
I don't think Spotify should be basing their pricing around what appeals to people who don't have much interest in music. ;)
True...but if they are pricing themselves out of the casual listeners ballpark, yet adding restrictions to the extent that the ad-supported service is...well...useless, then they are effectively narrowing their revenue stream to only those people who do listen to music all day every day.
What percentage of the population is that, I wonder?
Is there an app that detects sarcasm?
How about one that detects puns?
I know both of these things - I first used chmod about 1981.
The sentence doesn't make sense.
How about replacing "half a wrong chmod" with "a half-assed implementation of chmod". Better?
I agree, the description in the summary is goofed.
Bah, should uncross my eyes before replying. Didn't see the "can't", thought you said "can". Sorry, my bad!
I know you can't have a magentic field without an electric field, but is that really a two-way relationship?
Actually, you can't. A magnetic field induces an electric field across conductive elements proportional to its strength and the conductors' position relative to the magnetic field (and the right hand rule, of course). It's the basis for many measurement tools.
The reason you don't constantly get zapped by the earth's magnetic field is that a) it's pretty weak, and b) you're not that great a conductor (sorry if I dashed some dreams there)
If you were silly enough to hug a strong enough electromagnet, you could theoretically die by electrocution since the induced voltage across your body could be large enough to induce significant current flow.
It would also prevent the ISPs from blocking rival video streaming sites because "they suck up too much bandwidth" etc.
Sorry? I thought this proposal was saying that nobody can *force* the ISPs through the courts to block arbitrary content without an actual law *requiring* all ISPs to block it (such as child-pron). I didn't see anything in there stating that ISP's can't voluntarily and arbitrarily choose to filter content on their own initiative...but IANAL, maybe I missed it...
It's not the cost, it's the principle of the thing.
I know I was royally pissed off when I found out that I could only access my bought-and-paid-for Netflix account through my bought-and-paid-for XBox console if I kept bribing M$oft every month for a useless-to-me-because-I-don't-game-online 'Gold' account...no.
I wonder why Netflix ever agreed to that, since it only hurts their own user base. Sure, I have and use other devices that stream Netflix without additional cost, and I suppose others do too, so I guess Netflix probably isn't actually hurting because of this, but still... When I was looking around for a Netflix-capable media center solution for some less tech-savvy friends and relatives, I seriously considered recommending the XBox because of it's reasonable media capabilities and 'plug and play' form factor, until I found out about this particular racket...so I guess M$oft lost a bit more than $30 per year in that instance. Of course, the constant stream of revenue from those who find value in being able to play with irritating 12YO flamers probably more than makes up for it...
Yes in a way we CAN blame it on the government, because it ultimately comes down to "can you baby proof the world?". Because as someone who cleans these things for a living I can tell you a good 90% of infections are from users being dumbasses and NOTHING else.
Frankly, so what? The question isn't "whose fault is it", the question is "how do we stop it".
But the granddaddy question of them all is "how do we stop it without penalizing the other 90% of the world who are not dumbasses."
I believe that's what the GP was getting at.
(and I know, 90% is a pretty optimistic number, but anything else is just depressing...)
... nor do humans traverse every post made by every user.
...unless they have a fistful of mod points to spend...heck, sometimes I'm just very interested in a story and want to see what everyone has to say about it. True, that doesn't happen often, and I certainly don't read 10 posts a second, but it does happen...
It's a big deal to discover that something you thought was infallible has errors.
Then what? If it has one big error , how many more are there?
Hmmm...sounds very much like the IPCC's AR4. But that was written by the hand of man, not god. Oh, wait...
Every document on earth has an agenda, which is built into it by the people who write it. Really, is there any other reason to write, other than to share your worldview with others in hopes of convincing them to adjust their perspectives to match yours? Even entertainment writing tries to convince people to adjust their consciousness based on (sometimes) hidden themes and allegories. Writing for the purposes of advertising is a bit more blatant, in that it directly tries to tell you exactly what you should believe (Brand X is teh BESTEST!!! ZOMG, buy it NOWEZ!!!).
Scientific writings are no different, other than in one crucial point: they do (or should, if they're reputable) invite others to present evidence that refutes their conclusions. If their conclusions are disproved, they then (again, if they're reputable) seek to find out why, and adjust their conclusions accordingly rather than attacking the person who presented the evidence and calling them names. Like 'heretic' or 'witch' or 'denier'.
Have you tried Paint.NET?
I know, it's not open source, and it's only available for Windoze, but it's pretty darn flexible and there's tons of user support and user-created plugins. And the interface is much simpler than GIMP, I find...
FTFA
...after installing some software, users will be able to control various onscreen actions by looking at, blinking at, or fixing your gaze on an object.
So what, two blinks is a double-click? A wink is a right click? What about when our eyes are just plain dry?
This could get disorienting real fast...I'm not saying it's not good for some special circumstances, but IMHO people just aren't as consistent with their eyes as they are with their hands. Even while typing this, I'm looking around my desktop, checking my notification icons, etc. (ooh, I have mail) It would be disconcerting if my cursor were jumping right along with me, and downright frustrating if it shifted focus off of the text editor because I blinked at the wrong time...
...but I love the smell of irony in the morning...afternoon...whatever.
It kinda reminds me of that NOMEX factory that burned down...well, isn't that odd. I remember hearing about that at a safety meeting a couple of years ago, but now I can't find any links to post, none at all...was it all a dream? A deliciously ironic dream?
(I could only wish my dreams were more exciting than creating my own safety meetings in my head...*sigh*)
There are plenty of dumber people in the world who kill themselves by trying to accomplish something truly stupid every year.
All hail the Darwin Awards...
Is it leaving someone alone to say they need a cure for their sexual orientation?
Is it leaving someone alone to bombard them with advertising for diets / weight loss 'cures'? I wonder how many calorie-counting, BMI calculating or other unhealthily-skinny-promoting apps are on the Apple marketplace, especially targeting women and young girls? Perhaps a petition is needed...
My point is, this app expresses an opinion. There are other things that you could do with apps that could facilitate action, but (as far as I can find, anyways) this one expresses a simple, albeit misguided, opinion. It is not running around self-downloading onto phones, or performing any other action unless the user invites it in with the overt action of downloading the app.
You mention morality as a justification, but morality is a socio-religious construct. In some parts of the world, it is not considered moral for women to leave their hair or faces exposed, is it therefore 'wrong' to do so? Of course not? Why, then, is it 'wrong' to expose the rest of one's body in public except under certain restricted conditions? Who, exactly, does it hurt (well, other than the exposee if it's bloody cold out)?
The law is a series of rules with loose policy justifications. It is entirely possible for someone to act within the law and still be doing something they should not do.
[emphasis added]
Such as having gay sex? Or having sex before marriage? How about overeating? Who defines 'should'? IMHO, laws should exist solely to determine where your fist ends and my face begins. Unfortunately, law-makers are human, therefore laws are often flawed. As far as I'm concerned, as long as your statements or actions do not impede my life or freedom, you are fully entitled to them, as are others. You are free to try to make me feel guilty or abnormal by expressing your opinion, and I am free to argue with and/or ignore you and those like you (e.g.: christian world-view vs.atheistic world-view).
That's a thought. Would people have been so upset if an 'Atheist Cure' app were released? How about a 'Christian Cure' app? True, these are belief-based, not physical 'conditions', but these hypothetical apps would still simply be supporting an opinion: that the 'condition' in question is wrong and needs to be 'cured'.
Who would possibly be the market for this app?
That was precisely my thought. Who would actually download this app, other than perhaps as a practical joke on a buddy's unguarded phone? I'd be curious to see the actual d/l numbers on this app before Apple killed it.
I'm also curious how it proposed to 'cure' homosexuality? Scrolling vajayjay and boob photos? (or dick photos, for those ladies in the audience?) Providing random "it's okay not to be gay" messages and bible quotations? Showing gruesome pics of AIDS patients with "this could be YOU" captions, like they essentially do for smokers now? The first method might actually pull in some downloads, but probably not from the demographic they propose to be targeting...and would be uber-strange for a so-called 'christian' group to support...
Let it die a natural, commercial death.
This post is significantly more offensive than the app in question.
It looks like someone need to re-calibrate their sacrasmometer...
What a pity they didn't think to make the original app configurable. [...] You then have a universal panacea that's equally worthless at curing every conceivable condition. Much more flexible.
Excellent idea! I wonder how well it would fail on "Curing Shortness"? Or "Curing big-nosedness"? How about "Curing Cancer"?
Apple just likes to pretend it's God, that doesn't necessarily make it so...trouble is, sheeple keep acting as if it is, in fact, divine...
There are also a lot of people who think it's wrong to think "gay-ness" needs a cure. That teaches that it is a choice that needs "curing", and most of apple's target demographic finds that idea wrong.
Hmm...so what's apple's target demographic's position on emotional exploding birds? For or against? Is this a lesson we really want our children to take in?
Just because it's an app, doesn't make it frigging gospel. If it offends you, develop a 'Straight cure' app.
Oh, and btw, I find it quite offensive when people are offended 'on behalf of' other people who they've never met and never asked if they find it offensive or not. I don't much care for the app, I think it's unnecessary and quite tacky, but I'm not going to get all up in arms about it unless one of my friends who happen to be gay tells me this hurts or offends them personally. Perhaps you have heard such comments from your homosexual friends, in which case you have every right to be offended on their behalf. If, however, you've heard these comments from your straight friends, or from random people on discussion forums, then please get your head out of your arse.
Oh, and as for your little sarcasm fest above: The first point is ridiculous, since denying a person employment based on the colour of their skin is an action that violates that person's human rights. The employer can think what they like, as long as they act within the law. And the second point...are you proposing thought policing now? If some misguided soul thinks it would have been better if your GPs died in the holocaust, well, they do have the right to think that. They just don't have the right to cause you harm, or incite others to cause harm to you, because then it would violate your human rights.
People don't have the right to be liked, just to be free and safe from harm and generally left alone to live their lives how they choose. By the same reasoning, idiots who judge an entire group of people based on their nationality, gender, religion or sexual orientation have the right to nurture their cherished preconceptions in their otherwise empty skulls, as long as they don't act on them in a way that will violate another's human rights.
They probably said the same thing around the time scribes and librarians started writing and archiving things.
We wouldn't know, as the records of MyFace Papyrus Edition have long be lost to the ravages of time.
Are you sure about that? Anybody check Google Archives or the Wayback Machine?
Frig! Even I didn't see this, and it's a reply to my own post! (Thanks, btw)
The only way I could see this reply is by clicking the 'get x more comments' a dozen times or so, to load the entire discussion history. You may ask, Why? Answer: to see what happens.
Well, here we go. This is what happens. I get to see comments completely lost to the void.
(Do notifications for AC replies not work now, btw? Seriously, I didn't even get a reply notification for this one...)
Yeah, that would be nice.
Aha! I was going to ask you how you got italics when the <i> tags aren't working, but I see you used <em> tags instead. Cool, thanks!
Also, thanks for sharing your script, I'll have to try it when I get a chance. Hopefully (fingers crossed) it won't be needed for too much longer...
Cheers!
Yikes! That's alotta script, just to see the parent comments!
But yeah, it would be nice if Slashdot would make a "selected" comment automatically open its parent comments. You know, so you could actually see it. And this applies to "unread" comments that get opened by keyboard navigation shortcuts, too...
You got that right. I also wouldn't mind seeing at least the stubs of all replies to a selected comment...right now, if two or more people reply to a comment, we have to play the "let's find the reply" game on each one individually...it's as painful as having to connect phone calls one at a time through an old-fashioned switchboard, when what I really come here for is the cool conference call features...
Does anyone who re-designed this site, use this site?
The evidence would suggest not, unless the admin interface is substantially different (and less buggy) than the casual user interface...
Thanks for the tip on the slider, by the way! I hadn't bothered to try it, since it was always showing full comments even when the only comment visible was the root. Grabbing it and wiggling it back and forth to shake open the tree sure saves a lot of clicks, but still doesn't help my poor, poor scroll wheel...