I respect the fact that you have experience in the industry, and that you think that it's all a bunch of nonsense. I am not informed enough on the subject to have a proper opinion on that front.
However, it's a moot point. None of this really matters that much. Even if it is a gimmick and a fad, it's not one that I'm aware of that actually makes the movie experience worse for a significant portion of the population. It doesn't tax the sensory ability of the viewer. It doesn't cause discomfort in many. As far as I can tell, even if 5.1 is a gimmick, it's a benign one.
OK, but I would imagine that he would be after the highest ticket items in the store - consoles of every flavor.
I'm not thief... but this seems like a poor idea.
Sure, the consoles are more valuable per item, but they are also bulkier and a little heavier. If consoles are in the $200 to $300 range, and new games frequently go for $40 to $60, 4 or 5 games take up a lot less space and weigh less than 1 console. Also, unlike consoles, game discs don't have serial numbers on them. Additionally, GameStop keeps their higher ticket items in yet another locked cage inside the store. Games are locked in cabinets that would theoretically be a lot easier to get into quickly (and have a greater chance of sometimes maybe even being forgotten unlocked by employees).
Then again... if he were smart, he wouldn't have been doing this in the first place.
I prefer impersonal computers. My computer won't allow me to even use my name as a logon. I have to use user names like "Guy" or "Bloke", and themes are disabled.
Oh yes ! Because I like very much stopping and zooming on movies. In fact I always do that each 5mn, so I can watch details, *that* is really much more entertaining - even if my GF disagrees.
Thanks you for proving it's bullshit.
Right, because that's what the poster was suggesting, that many of us like to zoom in while we watch movies.
There's no way that he was just pointing out that using the zoom helps exagerate the existing differences in detail in order to make them more obvious.
In fact, you can use similar techniques for 1 megapixel digital photographs or video games running at 640x480 resolution compared to those of higher resolution. If you zoom in, you can suddenly and miraculously see details that were *IMPOSSIBLE* to see before!
But I'm sure you're right, it's all just BS. 640 lines of of upscaled resolution is more than anyone will ever need.
That's why a breast can't be displayed during the Super Bowl. It's the wrong place and the wrong time. Families will watch the Super Bowl, including kids, because it's considered to be "relatively" safe. Although, the FCC should be doing more about the commercials shown during the event.
If you want to view porn, that's up to you, and nobody should prevent you from doing so, as long as it's behind a door that says "here there be porn." That way, I and my wards won't stumble upon it without my expressed consent.
The fact that you follow up an example of a nip slip during a musical performance with an argument about accidentally seeing porn just goes to show you how screwed up our perception of simple nudity is in this country.
Nudity is NOT porn. A "wardrobe malfunction" is not porn.
Porn and simple nudity are two very different things and my mind boggles as to why so many people don't seem to get that.
Your analogy is a bit of a stretch, and a bit off topic...
To make an analogy of your analogy, it's as if you are trying to equate someone who assumes they already been exposed to the cold virus and is trying to drink lots of juice, eat chicken soup, and look for symptoms to validate the assumption that their health has compromised to someone who assumes their wife is sleeping with the mailman so he shoots the mailman.
It's not so much about a burning desire to have Flash on an iPhone, but rather resentment that Apple tells us that we aren't allowed to have Flash on our iPhone. We want freedom more than flash content, which is why some of us have indeed skipped the iPhone entirely.
However, not knowing anyone that uses an iPhone? Really? The number of iPhone users I know is double the number of Blackberry or Android users combined.. It's hard to throw a stone without hitting an iPhone user.
Well thank you for that interesting fact, I had never heard such a thing before. I'm very glad that I posed the sincere question now instead of jumping the gun.
At first I thought they might have been condescending, and then I thought they were naive and paranoid... but then I thought maybe they knew something I didn't know.
Apparently I was the naive one. Is there a +/-1 Humbled mod?;-)
Threats to networks could come from governments, but they can also come from extremists, corporations, hobbyists, or a legion of meme-spewing 4-channers.
The targets can be just as varied. They might target corporate networks, government networks, utility infrastructures, or a website that happens to of highly political interest.
Even if governments agree to such treaties, how do we know that they won't operate secretly anyway, and just blame cyber criminals or rogue groups if they do launch an attack? It's not like data packets in cyber attacks carry flags.
So congress should just stop worrying about any issues at all if they aren't the most important issues? By that argument, maybe should stop trying to improve employment rates and instead work on nothing but world peace. That's more important isn't it?
I have mixed feelings on making this a law, but I can certainly understand it. I don't watch much TV anymore, but I recall when I spent some time visiting my mother where I dozed off watching a TV show. The next thing I know, I'm being startled awake by a commercial that is so loud that it sounds like overdrive from the speakers. It was ridiculous how much louder it is.
Maybe it should have been done long ago, and it's certainly a lot easier to get people to agree on something like this than it is to get people to agree on how to improve economies. There you get in the realm of hot debate, competing theories and ideologies, and politics.
Besides, it's not like this has been the only issue that legislators have looked at.
You are exactly right, this is mimicking the early days of ISPs in that regard. However, what isn't mirrored here is that the early days of ISPs also had a much lower cost of entry. There were small ISPs all over the nation competing with eachother to gain customers with cheaper service, more time, and more features. They used to offer shell accounts, FTP accounts, free Usenet, and free personal webpage space.
Of course, as we moved to broadband, we started seeing fewer and fewer players involved, competition diminishing, extra frills slowly being removed, and now caps are coming back in.
Like wired broadband, mobile internet also has a limited number of players, high cost of entry, and I think it's more likely to drag it's heels in becoming more consumer friendly compared to the much more highly competitive early days of dial-up internet.
Entertain me here, but I would guess that if you are sending an invitation to someone specifically, you already know them and they probably know your real name anyway. If you are the sort of person who sends invites to people you don't know, then you deserve what you get if unknown_person_a gets your real name along with the invitation and does something bad with it. That's just being Darwin stupid.
There are many people that I only know by online persona or in games, that sometimes I have moved on to playing other games with. Just because I game with someone online doesn't mean they know my real name, or that I want them to. This is true whether or not I use forums.
And does not the earlier cited example of espn360.com also use a lot of bandwidth, but yet ComCast is paying them to allow them to continue delivering their content, while NetFlix has to pay to continue delivering it.
Slashdot was in favor of net neutrality, but it's against COICA? Both involve the government regulating internet traffic. The only thing I can see that makes Slashdotters against COICA is that it specifically targets piracy.
I can't speak for every Slashdotter, but...
Net Neutrality isn't about the government controlling the internet, it's about preventing corporations using leverage to control the internet and/or hold bandwidth hostage for competitive advantage or to inhibit the flow of free information.
As for being against policies that stop policies, it's not that I'm for piracy. It's just that legislation, policies, and industry practices to reduce piracy have been ineffective, will probably never be effective, hurt legitimate content consumers more than it hurts the pirates, and continuously erode what we can do under Fair Use. That's not to mention that they create ways for corporations to try to financially ruin individuals that are accused of infringing on a rather small scale, even if the evidence that they have done so is shaky. The people are abused, and even content providers of public domain works are often caught in the crossfire. And all of this is done in the name of stopping piracy (whose actual impact is really hard to know) of copyrighted (for way too damn long) works.
I think that these views are entirely consistent. We don't want corporations and governments meddling with our legitimate access to content and information.
Even if a 9/11 scale event happened every single year, it would take more than four years to match a single year of alcohol-related deaths in the U.S.
That's a poor way of thinking about it, kind of like saying that banks shouldn't have security guards because over 99% of robberies take place outside of banks.
Your argument is only true if you think that the threat of Customs finding documents on laptop hard drives are actually reducing the odds of terrorist attacks... I feel quite confidant that security guards in banks do actually act as at least some deterrent. It seems to me that you are trying to compare someone trying to contrast two levels of danger with a cause-and-effect relationship.
I'm not looking forward to when we can synthetically reproduce and upgrade our brains with new computing-like technologies. I don't want to have to pay millions of dollars for getting songs stuck in my head.
Slashdot Mirror
Fuck you! I have pigeons!!!
I respect the fact that you have experience in the industry, and that you think that it's all a bunch of nonsense. I am not informed enough on the subject to have a proper opinion on that front.
However, it's a moot point. None of this really matters that much. Even if it is a gimmick and a fad, it's not one that I'm aware of that actually makes the movie experience worse for a significant portion of the population. It doesn't tax the sensory ability of the viewer. It doesn't cause discomfort in many. As far as I can tell, even if 5.1 is a gimmick, it's a benign one.
Not everyone has the same experience with 3D.
OK, but I would imagine that he would be after the highest ticket items in the store - consoles of every flavor.
I'm not thief... but this seems like a poor idea.
Sure, the consoles are more valuable per item, but they are also bulkier and a little heavier. If consoles are in the $200 to $300 range, and new games frequently go for $40 to $60, 4 or 5 games take up a lot less space and weigh less than 1 console. Also, unlike consoles, game discs don't have serial numbers on them. Additionally, GameStop keeps their higher ticket items in yet another locked cage inside the store. Games are locked in cabinets that would theoretically be a lot easier to get into quickly (and have a greater chance of sometimes maybe even being forgotten unlocked by employees).
Then again... if he were smart, he wouldn't have been doing this in the first place.
And when they aren't portrayed as nerds, corporate shills, and taxpayer leeches, then it is out-of-touch elitists with liberal agendas.
Pfft, you use Personal Computers?
I prefer impersonal computers. My computer won't allow me to even use my name as a logon. I have to use user names like "Guy" or "Bloke", and themes are disabled.
Oh yes ! Because I like very much stopping and zooming on movies. In fact I always do that each 5mn, so I can watch details, *that* is really much more entertaining - even if my GF disagrees.
Thanks you for proving it's bullshit.
Right, because that's what the poster was suggesting, that many of us like to zoom in while we watch movies.
There's no way that he was just pointing out that using the zoom helps exagerate the existing differences in detail in order to make them more obvious.
In fact, you can use similar techniques for 1 megapixel digital photographs or video games running at 640x480 resolution compared to those of higher resolution. If you zoom in, you can suddenly and miraculously see details that were *IMPOSSIBLE* to see before!
But I'm sure you're right, it's all just BS. 640 lines of of upscaled resolution is more than anyone will ever need.
That's why a breast can't be displayed during the Super Bowl. It's the wrong place and the wrong time. Families will watch the Super Bowl, including kids, because it's considered to be "relatively" safe. Although, the FCC should be doing more about the commercials shown during the event.
If you want to view porn, that's up to you, and nobody should prevent you from doing so, as long as it's behind a door that says "here there be porn." That way, I and my wards won't stumble upon it without my expressed consent.
The fact that you follow up an example of a nip slip during a musical performance with an argument about accidentally seeing porn just goes to show you how screwed up our perception of simple nudity is in this country.
Nudity is NOT porn. A "wardrobe malfunction" is not porn.
Porn and simple nudity are two very different things and my mind boggles as to why so many people don't seem to get that.
Seeing the name XTreeGold makes my heart go pitter patter.
Yes, yes... Many times did I use a boot floppy with XTreeGold, and the UED text editor.
Your analogy is a bit of a stretch, and a bit off topic...
To make an analogy of your analogy, it's as if you are trying to equate someone who assumes they already been exposed to the cold virus and is trying to drink lots of juice, eat chicken soup, and look for symptoms to validate the assumption that their health has compromised to someone who assumes their wife is sleeping with the mailman so he shoots the mailman.
But to call Fox News right wing is equally strange, I don't think any -honest- conservative would like to be associated with that group of trolls
Perhaps, but where can I find one of those?
It's not so much about a burning desire to have Flash on an iPhone, but rather resentment that Apple tells us that we aren't allowed to have Flash on our iPhone. We want freedom more than flash content, which is why some of us have indeed skipped the iPhone entirely.
However, not knowing anyone that uses an iPhone? Really? The number of iPhone users I know is double the number of Blackberry or Android users combined.. It's hard to throw a stone without hitting an iPhone user.
Well thank you for that interesting fact, I had never heard such a thing before. I'm very glad that I posed the sincere question now instead of jumping the gun.
At first I thought they might have been condescending, and then I thought they were naive and paranoid... but then I thought maybe they knew something I didn't know.
Apparently I was the naive one. Is there a +/-1 Humbled mod? ;-)
I hate to admit it... but I'm not really sure if that post is a joke or not.
Exactly. Such an idea is rather worthless.
Threats to networks could come from governments, but they can also come from extremists, corporations, hobbyists, or a legion of meme-spewing 4-channers.
The targets can be just as varied. They might target corporate networks, government networks, utility infrastructures, or a website that happens to of highly political interest.
Even if governments agree to such treaties, how do we know that they won't operate secretly anyway, and just blame cyber criminals or rogue groups if they do launch an attack? It's not like data packets in cyber attacks carry flags.
Tell that to those who have lost family members due to cyber attacks...
I also would like to add... maybe they should have included internet video on this too... I'm beginning to see this phenomenon on Hulu now.
So congress should just stop worrying about any issues at all if they aren't the most important issues? By that argument, maybe should stop trying to improve employment rates and instead work on nothing but world peace. That's more important isn't it?
I have mixed feelings on making this a law, but I can certainly understand it. I don't watch much TV anymore, but I recall when I spent some time visiting my mother where I dozed off watching a TV show. The next thing I know, I'm being startled awake by a commercial that is so loud that it sounds like overdrive from the speakers. It was ridiculous how much louder it is.
Maybe it should have been done long ago, and it's certainly a lot easier to get people to agree on something like this than it is to get people to agree on how to improve economies. There you get in the realm of hot debate, competing theories and ideologies, and politics.
Besides, it's not like this has been the only issue that legislators have looked at.
You are exactly right, this is mimicking the early days of ISPs in that regard. However, what isn't mirrored here is that the early days of ISPs also had a much lower cost of entry. There were small ISPs all over the nation competing with eachother to gain customers with cheaper service, more time, and more features. They used to offer shell accounts, FTP accounts, free Usenet, and free personal webpage space.
Of course, as we moved to broadband, we started seeing fewer and fewer players involved, competition diminishing, extra frills slowly being removed, and now caps are coming back in.
Like wired broadband, mobile internet also has a limited number of players, high cost of entry, and I think it's more likely to drag it's heels in becoming more consumer friendly compared to the much more highly competitive early days of dial-up internet.
Entertain me here, but I would guess that if you are sending an invitation to someone specifically, you already know them and they probably know your real name anyway. If you are the sort of person who sends invites to people you don't know, then you deserve what you get if unknown_person_a gets your real name along with the invitation and does something bad with it. That's just being Darwin stupid.
There are many people that I only know by online persona or in games, that sometimes I have moved on to playing other games with. Just because I game with someone online doesn't mean they know my real name, or that I want them to. This is true whether or not I use forums.
And does not the earlier cited example of espn360.com also use a lot of bandwidth, but yet ComCast is paying them to allow them to continue delivering their content, while NetFlix has to pay to continue delivering it.
It's all a mess...
Then Comcast would be forced to stop banning netflix, else risk losing customers.
Maybe... in the towns where consumers have a choice of another broadband service.
Slashdot was in favor of net neutrality, but it's against COICA? Both involve the government regulating internet traffic. The only thing I can see that makes Slashdotters against COICA is that it specifically targets piracy.
I can't speak for every Slashdotter, but...
Net Neutrality isn't about the government controlling the internet, it's about preventing corporations using leverage to control the internet and/or hold bandwidth hostage for competitive advantage or to inhibit the flow of free information.
As for being against policies that stop policies, it's not that I'm for piracy. It's just that legislation, policies, and industry practices to reduce piracy have been ineffective, will probably never be effective, hurt legitimate content consumers more than it hurts the pirates, and continuously erode what we can do under Fair Use. That's not to mention that they create ways for corporations to try to financially ruin individuals that are accused of infringing on a rather small scale, even if the evidence that they have done so is shaky. The people are abused, and even content providers of public domain works are often caught in the crossfire. And all of this is done in the name of stopping piracy (whose actual impact is really hard to know) of copyrighted (for way too damn long) works.
I think that these views are entirely consistent. We don't want corporations and governments meddling with our legitimate access to content and information.
Even if a 9/11 scale event happened every single year, it would take more than four years to match a single year of alcohol-related deaths in the U.S.
That's a poor way of thinking about it, kind of like saying that banks shouldn't have security guards because over 99% of robberies take place outside of banks.
Your argument is only true if you think that the threat of Customs finding documents on laptop hard drives are actually reducing the odds of terrorist attacks... I feel quite confidant that security guards in banks do actually act as at least some deterrent. It seems to me that you are trying to compare someone trying to contrast two levels of danger with a cause-and-effect relationship.
Some creep is now thinking, "now I don't have to put spycams on my shoes!"
I'm not looking forward to when we can synthetically reproduce and upgrade our brains with new computing-like technologies. I don't want to have to pay millions of dollars for getting songs stuck in my head.