Futurama would be one of those shows that even at $3.99 a download
Yes, because I'd much rather spend $4 per episode than $50 a month for hundreds of channels with thousands of shows with several episodes each. That makes sense. After all, since ISPs dropped flat monthly fees years ago in favor of per minute charges, why wouldn't the same model work just as well with TV?
If I see an advertisement for something, I look for alternatives just on principle
I'm confused by this: if you see an ad for a product or service and later decide you want/need that product or service, or one like it, you spend more time looking for a replacement, just because you saw an ad which alerted you to the existence of said product or service in the first place? And how, pray tell, do you find a competitor, if not through some sort of ad?
If you're still sharp you might find yourself pulled into management, if you're not so sharp, start thinking about your career away from your company...
I've never understood why eBay doesn't hide the feedback someone gives you until after you've posted your own feedback, or after some amount of time passes, at which point you're barred from leaving feedback on the auction. Only after all that do the scores get reflected in your eBay feedback rating. This would make it impossible for someone to leave vendetta feedback, since they'd have no way of knowing what the other party's feedback for them was until after they left their own.
But companies should not be allowed to pay more to keep their competitors from providing something to me just as quickly.
So a Yahoo or Google shouldn't be allowed to pay extra to have their site load faster? Isn't that what they're doing everytime they add a new leased line, or improve the intelligence in their routing tables? The criticism of this plan just doesn't make any sense.
Look at this way: you own a highway. The highway can handle a certain amount of traffic. Some people, who need to get where they're going sooner, are willing to pay a premium to do so. So, you section off one lane from your four lane superhighway to be a toll lane. If someone wants to use that lane, they have to pay, and the more people who use it the more you charge. But if someone doesn't want to pay extra, they just use the three lanes left over.
Prioritizing traffic based on source or destination is done by ISPs and Websites all the time to help deliver content faster. Hell, there are companies out there who's sole purpose is to provide a specialized form of routing intelligence, to find the quickest route from your site to your visitor(s). And companies pay through the nose for that service. How is this any different?
Aw, man, I knew I forgot something for that Thanksgiving road trip! Now what am I gonna put on the crackers?!?
Re:To the Mythbusters whom it may concern-
on
Ask The Mythbusters
·
· Score: 1
It seems like it must be tempting to definitively call a myth "busted", even though the reality is that you just couldn't duplicate the results. Whether something is fact or fiction, scientifically a myth probably shouldn't be considered "busted" unless you have empirically show it to be implausable.
If this works (eventually) with humans, who will get access to it?
Who ever can afford it.
How will we justify the use of this when so many people die very young from preventable causes that are beyond their control?
How do you justify chemotherapy or AIDS therapy for people in developed countries when so many infants die of starvation in places like North Korea and the Sudan? Same difference.
How will we prevent the extreme accumulation of wealth that this would allow if it is not equally accessible to everyone?
You actually want to prevent someone from owning things? You can't do that without destroying freedom. Go read Hayek and learn a few things.
What if it is fed to you from a central and unblockable IP?
Then add an entry to your routing table for that subnet, pointing to 127.0.0.1, with a daemon listening on the right port and responding with the equivalent of a blank page.
CEOs who oversee record profits deserve record compensation - but to shell out millions in golden parachutes to CEOs who did nothing but deflect blame as they file for b/k and wipe out the pensions and investment portfolios of employees is simply wrong.
I agree 100%. But this doesn't apply to Ovitz, since the $140 million wasn't a reward, it was an enticement. He got it before ever sitting down in his new Disney office, because without it he would not have left his previous position.
The $140 mil was for what he gave up to go to Disney in the first place. If you owned a company that made you fabuously rich, wouldn't you expect some kind of compensation to walk away from it?
But I'm not sure if I'm buying this "total integration" thing Google's pushing. What are they going to get from my email? I send an email to my friends saying, "Wow, did you catch the latest 'Lost'?" and Google knows to record 'Lost'? I think in the end, some separation of the different aspects of my life is a good thing and I'm not eager to plug my whole life into Google just yet.
I do think it's interesting that all this is being pushed by a company who's motto is "Don't be evil." I think there are some who would argue that tracking and recording every little thing is just that.
In fact, I don't really want to have anything to do with the outside world, other than online. Wonder if it's time to move up to Luna base?
That might be a bit expensive, but there are some nice cabins in the woods you can go hide in, you anti-social freak.
Humans are social animals. If you disdain social interaction with other humans and care nothing for your social standing among them, you are going against millions of years of evolutionary adaptations, and are likely an evolutionary dead-end. The sooner you realize what a complete loser you are, the sooner you can fix this aberrant behavior and join the rest of your species in doing what comes naturally: trying to get to the top of the social pecking order.
(Sorry to sound so harsh, but I didn't think being nice would crack through the shell you've put up around yourself...this might not, either, but if it gets just one person to challenge their view of themselves and the world, then I'll achieved some small greatness today.)
Re:Watch a little more closely ...
on
Deep in the Core
·
· Score: 1
> While true, there is also a lot devoted to keeping soldiers alive.
But only because dead soldiers can't kill people.
Well, more accurately, it's because when more of the other guy's soldiers die than yours, you win. Also, in modern democracies, people tend to frown on having their soldiers come home in body bags (look at all the hubbub about Americans killed in Iraq in the last two and a half years, when the number hasn't even approached the number killed in the first hour of Gettysburg or D-Day yet).
Slashdot Mirror
Futurama would be one of those shows that even at $3.99 a download
Yes, because I'd much rather spend $4 per episode than $50 a month for hundreds of channels with thousands of shows with several episodes each. That makes sense. After all, since ISPs dropped flat monthly fees years ago in favor of per minute charges, why wouldn't the same model work just as well with TV?
Isn't it fantastic what you can do with a few pixels and some imagination?
You just described my love life!
If I see an advertisement for something, I look for alternatives just on principle
I'm confused by this: if you see an ad for a product or service and later decide you want/need that product or service, or one like it, you spend more time looking for a replacement, just because you saw an ad which alerted you to the existence of said product or service in the first place? And how, pray tell, do you find a competitor, if not through some sort of ad?
If you're still sharp you might find yourself pulled into management, if you're not so sharp, start thinking about your career away from your company...
Strike that, reverse it.
I've never understood why eBay doesn't hide the feedback someone gives you until after you've posted your own feedback, or after some amount of time passes, at which point you're barred from leaving feedback on the auction. Only after all that do the scores get reflected in your eBay feedback rating. This would make it impossible for someone to leave vendetta feedback, since they'd have no way of knowing what the other party's feedback for them was until after they left their own.
But companies should not be allowed to pay more to keep their competitors from providing something to me just as quickly.
So a Yahoo or Google shouldn't be allowed to pay extra to have their site load faster? Isn't that what they're doing everytime they add a new leased line, or improve the intelligence in their routing tables? The criticism of this plan just doesn't make any sense.
Look at this way: you own a highway. The highway can handle a certain amount of traffic. Some people, who need to get where they're going sooner, are willing to pay a premium to do so. So, you section off one lane from your four lane superhighway to be a toll lane. If someone wants to use that lane, they have to pay, and the more people who use it the more you charge. But if someone doesn't want to pay extra, they just use the three lanes left over.
Prioritizing traffic based on source or destination is done by ISPs and Websites all the time to help deliver content faster. Hell, there are companies out there who's sole purpose is to provide a specialized form of routing intelligence, to find the quickest route from your site to your visitor(s). And companies pay through the nose for that service. How is this any different?
Or just convince Taco et al to hire a dedicated science editor who knows his stuff? Seems like there's definitely a need for one.
Oh yeah? Eat shit.
You're right, your posts do not contain outrageous statements, inflammatory rhetoric, or gross obscenity. I was mistaken.
Our largest export these days is violence and ridiculous law and trade practices.
Judging by most of your comments, outrageous statements, inflammatory rhetoric, and gross obscenity are still some of our major exports.
It's like self-righteousness in a can!
Aw, man, I knew I forgot something for that Thanksgiving road trip! Now what am I gonna put on the crackers?!?
It seems like it must be tempting to definitively call a myth "busted", even though the reality is that you just couldn't duplicate the results. Whether something is fact or fiction, scientifically a myth probably shouldn't be considered "busted" unless you have empirically show it to be implausable.
You believe in Intelligent Design, don't you?
Expect this same "Viloent crime spree videogame inspires real killers" to pop up in Law and Order next.
c rime-game/
IIRC, they've already done it. Twice. Once on SVU, once on Criminal Intent.
I couldn't find a link to the CI episode so maybe I'm misremembering, but here's something about the SVU one: http://gamingredients.com/news/2005/02/law-order-
Can you really complain if you didn't vote?
Hell ya, you can! In fact, it's the people who vote who can't complain. You voted, it's your fault. I had nothing to do with it, I'm innocent.
(With apologies to George Carlin.)
I mean, I don't want to live six times longer and be impotent the whole time.
Though that might soothe the overpopulation crowd!
I suspect that some sort of drug may come out of this, but it'll likely have the side effect of people wanting to sit around and not do much
So many jokes just wanting to burst out! XBox, IRC, potheads, my sophomore year of college, the list goes on and on!
If this works (eventually) with humans, who will get access to it?
Who ever can afford it.
How will we justify the use of this when so many people die very young from preventable causes that are beyond their control?
How do you justify chemotherapy or AIDS therapy for people in developed countries when so many infants die of starvation in places like North Korea and the Sudan? Same difference.
How will we prevent the extreme accumulation of wealth that this would allow if it is not equally accessible to everyone?
You actually want to prevent someone from owning things? You can't do that without destroying freedom. Go read Hayek and learn a few things.
Nah, it would just mean people would have more incentive to colonize the moon, Mars, the deep ocean, and so forth.
I'm sorry, when did MS lose the browser battle?
When browsers became irrelevant as people realized it was the content they were viewing, not the device with which they viewed it, that was important.
What if it is fed to you from a central and unblockable IP?
Then add an entry to your routing table for that subnet, pointing to 127.0.0.1, with a daemon listening on the right port and responding with the equivalent of a blank page.
1337/IM $p3k wair u h4a 2 d3c!p3r wh47 1$ $4!d
There are times when I think "I'm not that much of a geek." Then I read something like that with ease and realize, yes, yes I am.
CEOs who oversee record profits deserve record compensation - but to shell out millions in golden parachutes to CEOs who did nothing but deflect blame as they file for b/k and wipe out the pensions and investment portfolios of employees is simply wrong.
I agree 100%. But this doesn't apply to Ovitz, since the $140 million wasn't a reward, it was an enticement. He got it before ever sitting down in his new Disney office, because without it he would not have left his previous position.
(Sorry for the long delay between replies.)
The $140 mil was for what he gave up to go to Disney in the first place. If you owned a company that made you fabuously rich, wouldn't you expect some kind of compensation to walk away from it?
But I'm not sure if I'm buying this "total integration" thing Google's pushing. What are they going to get from my email? I send an email to my friends saying, "Wow, did you catch the latest 'Lost'?" and Google knows to record 'Lost'? I think in the end, some separation of the different aspects of my life is a good thing and I'm not eager to plug my whole life into Google just yet.
I do think it's interesting that all this is being pushed by a company who's motto is "Don't be evil." I think there are some who would argue that tracking and recording every little thing is just that.
In fact, I don't really want to have anything to do with the outside world, other than online. Wonder if it's time to move up to Luna base?
That might be a bit expensive, but there are some nice cabins in the woods you can go hide in, you anti-social freak.
Humans are social animals. If you disdain social interaction with other humans and care nothing for your social standing among them, you are going against millions of years of evolutionary adaptations, and are likely an evolutionary dead-end. The sooner you realize what a complete loser you are, the sooner you can fix this aberrant behavior and join the rest of your species in doing what comes naturally: trying to get to the top of the social pecking order.
(Sorry to sound so harsh, but I didn't think being nice would crack through the shell you've put up around yourself...this might not, either, but if it gets just one person to challenge their view of themselves and the world, then I'll achieved some small greatness today.)
> While true, there is also a lot devoted to keeping soldiers alive.
But only because dead soldiers can't kill people.
Well, more accurately, it's because when more of the other guy's soldiers die than yours, you win. Also, in modern democracies, people tend to frown on having their soldiers come home in body bags (look at all the hubbub about Americans killed in Iraq in the last two and a half years, when the number hasn't even approached the number killed in the first hour of Gettysburg or D-Day yet).