Well, if the movie has only been shown once in a certain location by a small number of people, and a far larger number of people from another region suddenly jump in and vote it down, I'd say it's pretty obvious they haven't seen it.
The unfortunate fact of the matter is: if you want your polling/rating system to be any good, you have to put in protections to prevent abuses like this. Since it's really hard to predict these things beforehand, you have to be ready to react after the fact and make changes and corrections. In this case, I'd say that means banning anyone from a Turkish IP from rating this movie, ever. They've already shown they can't be trusted and will abuse the system. Any ratings from those addresses should just get an error message saying "this IP address has been the source of abuse and can no longer submit votes".
I never said anything about Turkey being part of the EU; you must be thinking of some other poster. I only addressed your assertion that political actions or excuses for actions are not associated with Islam, which is blatantly false. Religion has long been used by political leaders as a tool, but that doesn't mean the religion has nothing to do with those leaders' actions, or that the religion is blameless; in fact the opposite is true. If the religion actually lived up to its divine claims, then it would be impossible for it to be subverted that way.
As for comparing the words and actions of real, modern-day Christians to what Jesus supposedly said and did, you can make that comparison, as it is interesting in pointing out what appears to be hypocrisy of Christians from your point of view, however that doesn't mean that those peoples' doings aren't "Christian", they absolutely are, and since they claim to be true believers and you don't, then they have far more claim to what constitutes "true" Christianity than you do. Similarly, ISIS and Taliban leaders have far more claim what constitutes "true" Islam than anyone who isn't a Muslim.
A religion is defined by its current believers, not by what some outsider or one anonymous internet commenter claims its founder would do.
Keeping transsexuals out of bathrooms is absolutely a Christian issue today, just like issues being flavored with Islam by Erdogan and other such leaders are absolutely Islamic issues. As long as the followers of the religion believe the issue to be religious in nature, it is. Who are you tell tell them that they're doing their religion wrong?
I'm not Christian, so for me to say that all the Christians who believe the bathroom issue is a religious issue isn't would be the height of arrogance.
You want votes from real people who've actually seen the movie.
Wrong. You might think that's a good idea, and I would completely agree, however IMDB does not. If they did, this wouldn't be a problem, because they would have designed their system to account for this.
This "discussion" you're having here is completely typical of today's Slashdot. It's sad how far this site has fallen; it isn't even worth it to me to bother commenting in these stories any more.
We'll have to agree to disagree; as you pointed out, the only way we'll know for sure is when people try it or demonstrate it. I don't think asteroid mining is that unrealistic; we already have very successful space probes now, exploring Pluto, Jupiter, comets, etc. The main problems with asteroid mining are 1) manipulating the asteroid, which will require some sort of propulsion unit, but with an ion engine and plenty of time, it should be doable (without humans in space, we don't need something with extremely high thrust and can afford to take months to redirect the asteroid to where we want it), and 2) having a way of harvesting it. But as the article points out, we've already spend billions of dollars on Uber, so it's not like this is an astronomical sum of money (pun intended).
In the farther future, I don't think energy and raw materials will be free at all; a lot of work will be low-cost due to automation, but energy will always be the limiter, and also raw materials if they're rare. There is not an unlimited supply of stuff in the Earth's crust, for instance gold, or else it'd all be dirt-cheap. And mining on Earth has horrific ecological effects. Making robots with robots really sounds like a sci-fi movie, like the "replicators" from the Stargate series for instance. 3D-printing does allow a certain amount of small-scale on-site fabrication, but it'll probably be a while before you can fabricate things like microchips like that.
And please, robot "bugs" sifting through trash? Asteroid mining is far less sci-fi than that. Besides, you're not going to find lots of precious metals in the landfills.
You're way, way too optimistic about the capabilities of robots in the near future. And you're overlooking who's going to own all the robots that do the work.
What if you want to open the door remotely for a delivery driver?
And how exactly does Joe Sixpack set up a VPN server at home that's accessible from an app on his phone, that can all be set up and easily installed by someone who can't do much more than double-click on an installer file?
Fuck off, you stupid sack of shit. The fucking device doesn't work at all without the fucking server. Are you too fucking stupid to comprehend this? I sincerely hope you die in a fire.
But you know, a question is forming in my head. I do know what you mean about edit-buttons. They exist. I've implemented them myself in projects. They *seem* useful. Why doesn't Slashdot just implement them too?
They *are* useful. That's why we have computers instead of chiseling things onto stone tablets: because mistakes happen, and this technology allows us to correct things easily. Not allowing this is simply intentional hobbling.
How conditioned are we by the existence of edit-buttons?
How conditioned are we by laundry machines and indoor plumbing and polio vaccinations? Why would we not want to take advantage of these things?
I don't know about you, but when I've used an edit-button I feel a certain anxiety about how many people might have seen my original unedited post.
I don't. But there is a valid concern that people could go back much later and edit a post to something completely different, making anyone replying to them look like an ass. There's a couple ways of handling this. Some sites, like HN (which is far more minimalistic than this site BTW), have a time-limit on editing. I don't know what the limit is offhand, maybe an hour, but it's not that much. Even a 5-minute limit would be fine, because most people who want to edit probably see their mistake immediately after hitting "submit" anyway. The other thing you can do (I think Reddit does this) is indicate somehow that the post has been edited after-the-fact. So it's not an all-or-nothing affair. You can allow editing without it turning into a giant problem.
Yes, I know we could implement edit-histories and diffs against revisions and all that shit. But why go to such effort
There is no real effort involved. As I said before, HN allows editing for a short time after posting, and it is a FAR simpler and more minimalistic site than this one. It'd be a few lines of code to do that. Yes, edit histories and diffs are much more complex (now you're talking about doing something like what Wikipedia has), but no one reasonable is asking for that level of featuritis.
Personally I only saw the first Hobbit movie, and was rather unimpressed, not only by the story but also the FX. It looked really fake in many places. The 3D and HFR was technically impressive, but I didn't think it was really great overall. It is weird how different those movies were from the LotR movies. Are we sure they were made by the same Peter Jackson? Maybe the real one was killed and he was replaced by an evil clone. That would explain it. Or perhaps he has an evil twin brother who knocked him off.
Anyway, the problem I see is that even if there's 20 worthwhile movies, that's still only about 2.5 per year. That just doesn't seem like enough to keep very many theaters going, maybe not even any. However, that brings me back to my prior post: what are the box-office sales really like? Well, according to this doom-and-gloom article, plus these domestic ticket sales numbers from 1995 to now, it's really not that bad. Just in the US, the number of tickets sold seems to really have been rather constant since 1995: it was 1.33B (billion!) tickets in 2016, up from 1.22B in '95. Of course, most years in between '97--'15 were higher, but not that much. 2010 and 2011 were even worse, as was 2014. But overall, these numbers look fairly constant to me. So even with all the "theaters suck!" comments here, obviously someone's buying these tickets, and it makes sense since so many anti-theater comments are complaining about the other patrons. Now if you look at these numbers on a per-capita basis, it doesn't look so great since the population has grown since '95, but still, it sure doesn't look like the theaters are in danger of losing all their viewers any time soon. If they can't figure out how to stay in the black and keep their doors open with all these willing theater-goers, then they're doing something else very wrong. Honestly, this sounds to me like an industry that's whining and moaning because they think they're entitled to constant growth, and they're no longer getting it, but this is nothing new: theaters used to be a LOT more popular (per capita) way back before the color TV became commonplace, or before TVs became affordable.
Well considering the extra money that women get for harassment lawsuits, alimony and child support
Hey, they deserve the money for child support. Raising those little demons costs a lot of money, and putting up with them is a form of torture and should be compensated handsomely.
Hopefully soon, we'll have that new male contraceptive that's being tested in India (where they inject something in the seminal vessels that blocks sperm, but can be easily dissolved with another injection to restore full fertility unlike vasectomies which are more invasive and not as reliably and easily reversible). They really should make that mandatory for all men under the age of 30.
>* Universal basic income will not have people sitting at home getting high and playing video games
And what's wrong with that? Weed and video games are cheap. Would you prefer they be out running around committing crimes, possibly mugging you or stealing your stuff? Because that's the choice you have. Either pay them enough to survive and have a little cheap entertainment so they don't cause problems, or pay for cops and prisons and the economic effects of crime.
Do you live within 50 miles of a US military base? If so, that's your problem. You need to buy a newer opener, or an add-on receiver that uses a different frequency band. I had to do this for mine.
If you think viewing its status is a useful feature, then what are you going to do if it's open and you're an hour away? Why wouldn't you want to be able to close it remotely?
(Disclaimer: I don't condone buying this particular device. The company owner is obviously an asshole and you might end up with a non-functional device depending on his whim or his business performance.)
Only advantage I can see is that you don't need to leave remotes in the cars anymore since you have a multifunction device in your pocket that can perform that service.
I don't see how that's much of an advantage. It takes me no time at all to reach up to my mirror and press the Homelink button to open my garage door. But even if I have my phone on its dashboard mount (which I only do if I'm taking a trip out of my little town somewhere, rather than just going to work or one of my normal local destinations), it still would take me some time to press the "home" button, find my garage door app, open that, then press the button to open the door. If the phone's on my belt like it usually is, now I have to squirm to get my phone, on top of that. No thanks.
The only advantage I see with this thing is being able to see if I forgot to close the door, or if it didn't close itself properly if I drove away too quickly, and then being able to attempt closing it again remotely. That's not something I would do too often.
There's a certain group of people who think there's some kind of prestige in being first to see/hear something. I knew a guy in my dorm in college who thought he was somehow getting bragging rights because he picked up a copy of REM's "Automatic for the People" album when it was just released. Whoopee, that's nice. These are people who chase the new shiny, and have little appreciation for quality, or ability to discern it.
You're not that different. You both hate the commercials, he just likes the previews. Personally, I mostly agree with him; I like being able to see previews too, for movies I'm interested in. However, it'd be better with a "skip" function if the movie is obviously crap. But the previews are really not a complaint of mine with theaters; I have far bigger complaints about them (volume, other patrons, no rewind/pause, sticky floors, high prices, no good food, etc.).
There's no way to please everyone 100% all the time, that's true, but it's possible to come to workable compromises and not worry about small details. But theaters aren't doing anything to address all these other complaints which many other people have.
I didn't see those movies so I'll grant you those, but it sounds like basically after at least 8 years of the modern wave of 3D movies, we have 4 that are worth watching in a theater. That's really not very good economics, and not enough to make a convincing case that theaters are worth patronizing, and to keep those theaters in business.
Speaking of keeping them in business, I keep seeing articles about certain parties trying to brainwash us into going back to the theater, so I'm really curious: are there are hard numbers about how the cinema business is doing these days? Are they just whining, or are they really in danger of going under as an industry? Maybe I'm being forgetful or missing something, but I never seem to see this part of the story. I do see stories regularly about how Macy's and Sears are closing stores and Kmart is shutting down and various other retailers have folded, but I haven't seen anything about theater chains like AMC shutting down hundreds of locations.
When the server that it's hardcoded to use is either decommissioned or your access is revoked, then there's no practical way of making it function again, short of hacking it, changing the firmware, and making it do something else.
Similarly, other devices that are "bricked" the way you think they are can also be made to function again with extraordinary measures. All you need is a JTAG debugger, and lots of time to reverse-engineer it. Again, practicality and accessibility to normal consumers is the key here. Something that can be revived by JTAG is still "bricked" as far as a regular consumer is concerned, since they don't even know what JTAG is, let alone have the tools and expertise to do such a thing. The same applies here: a regular consumer has NO WAY of making this device work again.
Wrong. Designers are choosing flat UIs, because they're lazy, talentless hacks. People don't choose these devices based on the UI, they choose what's available in the market, which usually amounts to 1-3 choices tops. Apple doesn't poll people to see what they like; they have a long, long history of making design decisions and forcing them on users (who usually seem to be happy to go along like lemmings). MS tried forcing Metro on their phones and it was a complete disaster; no one bought them. So they brought it to the desktop and people didn't have a choice. And websites? Are you serious? Who refuses to visit a website because of the shitty UI?
Flat design exists because it's a fad pushed by the shitty UI/UX designers.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if the movie has only been shown once in a certain location by a small number of people, and a far larger number of people from another region suddenly jump in and vote it down, I'd say it's pretty obvious they haven't seen it.
The unfortunate fact of the matter is: if you want your polling/rating system to be any good, you have to put in protections to prevent abuses like this. Since it's really hard to predict these things beforehand, you have to be ready to react after the fact and make changes and corrections. In this case, I'd say that means banning anyone from a Turkish IP from rating this movie, ever. They've already shown they can't be trusted and will abuse the system. Any ratings from those addresses should just get an error message saying "this IP address has been the source of abuse and can no longer submit votes".
I never said anything about Turkey being part of the EU; you must be thinking of some other poster. I only addressed your assertion that political actions or excuses for actions are not associated with Islam, which is blatantly false. Religion has long been used by political leaders as a tool, but that doesn't mean the religion has nothing to do with those leaders' actions, or that the religion is blameless; in fact the opposite is true. If the religion actually lived up to its divine claims, then it would be impossible for it to be subverted that way.
As for comparing the words and actions of real, modern-day Christians to what Jesus supposedly said and did, you can make that comparison, as it is interesting in pointing out what appears to be hypocrisy of Christians from your point of view, however that doesn't mean that those peoples' doings aren't "Christian", they absolutely are, and since they claim to be true believers and you don't, then they have far more claim to what constitutes "true" Christianity than you do. Similarly, ISIS and Taliban leaders have far more claim what constitutes "true" Islam than anyone who isn't a Muslim.
Wrong: No True Scotsman fallacy.
A religion is defined by its current believers, not by what some outsider or one anonymous internet commenter claims its founder would do.
Keeping transsexuals out of bathrooms is absolutely a Christian issue today, just like issues being flavored with Islam by Erdogan and other such leaders are absolutely Islamic issues. As long as the followers of the religion believe the issue to be religious in nature, it is. Who are you tell tell them that they're doing their religion wrong?
I'm not Christian, so for me to say that all the Christians who believe the bathroom issue is a religious issue isn't would be the height of arrogance.
You want votes from real people who've actually seen the movie.
Wrong. You might think that's a good idea, and I would completely agree, however IMDB does not. If they did, this wouldn't be a problem, because they would have designed their system to account for this.
This "discussion" you're having here is completely typical of today's Slashdot. It's sad how far this site has fallen; it isn't even worth it to me to bother commenting in these stories any more.
We'll have to agree to disagree; as you pointed out, the only way we'll know for sure is when people try it or demonstrate it. I don't think asteroid mining is that unrealistic; we already have very successful space probes now, exploring Pluto, Jupiter, comets, etc. The main problems with asteroid mining are 1) manipulating the asteroid, which will require some sort of propulsion unit, but with an ion engine and plenty of time, it should be doable (without humans in space, we don't need something with extremely high thrust and can afford to take months to redirect the asteroid to where we want it), and 2) having a way of harvesting it. But as the article points out, we've already spend billions of dollars on Uber, so it's not like this is an astronomical sum of money (pun intended).
In the farther future, I don't think energy and raw materials will be free at all; a lot of work will be low-cost due to automation, but energy will always be the limiter, and also raw materials if they're rare. There is not an unlimited supply of stuff in the Earth's crust, for instance gold, or else it'd all be dirt-cheap. And mining on Earth has horrific ecological effects. Making robots with robots really sounds like a sci-fi movie, like the "replicators" from the Stargate series for instance. 3D-printing does allow a certain amount of small-scale on-site fabrication, but it'll probably be a while before you can fabricate things like microchips like that.
Goldman Sachs disagrees with you. Asteroid mining can now be done for not much more money than it costs to open a regular metals mine on Earth:
http://www.businessinsider.com...
And please, robot "bugs" sifting through trash? Asteroid mining is far less sci-fi than that. Besides, you're not going to find lots of precious metals in the landfills.
You're way, way too optimistic about the capabilities of robots in the near future. And you're overlooking who's going to own all the robots that do the work.
What if you want to open the door remotely for a delivery driver?
And how exactly does Joe Sixpack set up a VPN server at home that's accessible from an app on his phone, that can all be set up and easily installed by someone who can't do much more than double-click on an installer file?
Fuck off, you stupid sack of shit. The fucking device doesn't work at all without the fucking server. Are you too fucking stupid to comprehend this? I sincerely hope you die in a fire.
Yeah, I'm sure some random non-engineer would be able to figure out how to reverse engineer this device and make their own server...
Yes, it is "technically bricked". From dictionary.com: "Informal. to cause (an electronic device) to become completely nonfunctional"
If the device won't work at all for its intended purpose, that makes it "completely nonfunctional", which means it's "bricked".
Great, let's start with you and your family as soon as any of you have some kind of health problem. Agree?
You stupid piece of shit.
From dictionary.com:
The device in this case is completely nonfunctional.
And your stupid definition is wrong anyway. Almost any "bricked" device (the way you're thinking about it) can be fixed over JTAG.
So, are you going to apologize for being a moron and an asshole?
But you know, a question is forming in my head. I do know what you mean about edit-buttons. They exist. I've implemented them myself in projects. They *seem* useful. Why doesn't Slashdot just implement them too?
They *are* useful. That's why we have computers instead of chiseling things onto stone tablets: because mistakes happen, and this technology allows us to correct things easily. Not allowing this is simply intentional hobbling.
How conditioned are we by the existence of edit-buttons?
How conditioned are we by laundry machines and indoor plumbing and polio vaccinations? Why would we not want to take advantage of these things?
I don't know about you, but when I've used an edit-button I feel a certain anxiety about how many people might have seen my original unedited post.
I don't. But there is a valid concern that people could go back much later and edit a post to something completely different, making anyone replying to them look like an ass. There's a couple ways of handling this. Some sites, like HN (which is far more minimalistic than this site BTW), have a time-limit on editing. I don't know what the limit is offhand, maybe an hour, but it's not that much. Even a 5-minute limit would be fine, because most people who want to edit probably see their mistake immediately after hitting "submit" anyway. The other thing you can do (I think Reddit does this) is indicate somehow that the post has been edited after-the-fact. So it's not an all-or-nothing affair. You can allow editing without it turning into a giant problem.
Yes, I know we could implement edit-histories and diffs against revisions and all that shit. But why go to such effort
There is no real effort involved. As I said before, HN allows editing for a short time after posting, and it is a FAR simpler and more minimalistic site than this one. It'd be a few lines of code to do that. Yes, edit histories and diffs are much more complex (now you're talking about doing something like what Wikipedia has), but no one reasonable is asking for that level of featuritis.
Personally I only saw the first Hobbit movie, and was rather unimpressed, not only by the story but also the FX. It looked really fake in many places. The 3D and HFR was technically impressive, but I didn't think it was really great overall. It is weird how different those movies were from the LotR movies. Are we sure they were made by the same Peter Jackson? Maybe the real one was killed and he was replaced by an evil clone. That would explain it. Or perhaps he has an evil twin brother who knocked him off.
Anyway, the problem I see is that even if there's 20 worthwhile movies, that's still only about 2.5 per year. That just doesn't seem like enough to keep very many theaters going, maybe not even any. However, that brings me back to my prior post: what are the box-office sales really like? Well, according to this doom-and-gloom article, plus these domestic ticket sales numbers from 1995 to now, it's really not that bad. Just in the US, the number of tickets sold seems to really have been rather constant since 1995: it was 1.33B (billion!) tickets in 2016, up from 1.22B in '95. Of course, most years in between '97--'15 were higher, but not that much. 2010 and 2011 were even worse, as was 2014. But overall, these numbers look fairly constant to me. So even with all the "theaters suck!" comments here, obviously someone's buying these tickets, and it makes sense since so many anti-theater comments are complaining about the other patrons. Now if you look at these numbers on a per-capita basis, it doesn't look so great since the population has grown since '95, but still, it sure doesn't look like the theaters are in danger of losing all their viewers any time soon. If they can't figure out how to stay in the black and keep their doors open with all these willing theater-goers, then they're doing something else very wrong. Honestly, this sounds to me like an industry that's whining and moaning because they think they're entitled to constant growth, and they're no longer getting it, but this is nothing new: theaters used to be a LOT more popular (per capita) way back before the color TV became commonplace, or before TVs became affordable.
Well considering the extra money that women get for harassment lawsuits, alimony and child support
Hey, they deserve the money for child support. Raising those little demons costs a lot of money, and putting up with them is a form of torture and should be compensated handsomely.
Hopefully soon, we'll have that new male contraceptive that's being tested in India (where they inject something in the seminal vessels that blocks sperm, but can be easily dissolved with another injection to restore full fertility unlike vasectomies which are more invasive and not as reliably and easily reversible). They really should make that mandatory for all men under the age of 30.
>* Universal basic income will not have people sitting at home getting high and playing video games
And what's wrong with that? Weed and video games are cheap. Would you prefer they be out running around committing crimes, possibly mugging you or stealing your stuff? Because that's the choice you have. Either pay them enough to survive and have a little cheap entertainment so they don't cause problems, or pay for cops and prisons and the economic effects of crime.
Do you live within 50 miles of a US military base? If so, that's your problem. You need to buy a newer opener, or an add-on receiver that uses a different frequency band. I had to do this for mine.
If you think viewing its status is a useful feature, then what are you going to do if it's open and you're an hour away? Why wouldn't you want to be able to close it remotely?
(Disclaimer: I don't condone buying this particular device. The company owner is obviously an asshole and you might end up with a non-functional device depending on his whim or his business performance.)
Only advantage I can see is that you don't need to leave remotes in the cars anymore since you have a multifunction device in your pocket that can perform that service.
I don't see how that's much of an advantage. It takes me no time at all to reach up to my mirror and press the Homelink button to open my garage door. But even if I have my phone on its dashboard mount (which I only do if I'm taking a trip out of my little town somewhere, rather than just going to work or one of my normal local destinations), it still would take me some time to press the "home" button, find my garage door app, open that, then press the button to open the door. If the phone's on my belt like it usually is, now I have to squirm to get my phone, on top of that. No thanks.
The only advantage I see with this thing is being able to see if I forgot to close the door, or if it didn't close itself properly if I drove away too quickly, and then being able to attempt closing it again remotely. That's not something I would do too often.
There's a certain group of people who think there's some kind of prestige in being first to see/hear something. I knew a guy in my dorm in college who thought he was somehow getting bragging rights because he picked up a copy of REM's "Automatic for the People" album when it was just released. Whoopee, that's nice. These are people who chase the new shiny, and have little appreciation for quality, or ability to discern it.
You're not that different. You both hate the commercials, he just likes the previews. Personally, I mostly agree with him; I like being able to see previews too, for movies I'm interested in. However, it'd be better with a "skip" function if the movie is obviously crap. But the previews are really not a complaint of mine with theaters; I have far bigger complaints about them (volume, other patrons, no rewind/pause, sticky floors, high prices, no good food, etc.).
There's no way to please everyone 100% all the time, that's true, but it's possible to come to workable compromises and not worry about small details. But theaters aren't doing anything to address all these other complaints which many other people have.
I didn't see those movies so I'll grant you those, but it sounds like basically after at least 8 years of the modern wave of 3D movies, we have 4 that are worth watching in a theater. That's really not very good economics, and not enough to make a convincing case that theaters are worth patronizing, and to keep those theaters in business.
Speaking of keeping them in business, I keep seeing articles about certain parties trying to brainwash us into going back to the theater, so I'm really curious: are there are hard numbers about how the cinema business is doing these days? Are they just whining, or are they really in danger of going under as an industry? Maybe I'm being forgetful or missing something, but I never seem to see this part of the story. I do see stories regularly about how Macy's and Sears are closing stores and Kmart is shutting down and various other retailers have folded, but I haven't seen anything about theater chains like AMC shutting down hundreds of locations.
Wrong again.
When the server that it's hardcoded to use is either decommissioned or your access is revoked, then there's no practical way of making it function again, short of hacking it, changing the firmware, and making it do something else.
Similarly, other devices that are "bricked" the way you think they are can also be made to function again with extraordinary measures. All you need is a JTAG debugger, and lots of time to reverse-engineer it. Again, practicality and accessibility to normal consumers is the key here. Something that can be revived by JTAG is still "bricked" as far as a regular consumer is concerned, since they don't even know what JTAG is, let alone have the tools and expertise to do such a thing. The same applies here: a regular consumer has NO WAY of making this device work again.
Wrong. Designers are choosing flat UIs, because they're lazy, talentless hacks. People don't choose these devices based on the UI, they choose what's available in the market, which usually amounts to 1-3 choices tops. Apple doesn't poll people to see what they like; they have a long, long history of making design decisions and forcing them on users (who usually seem to be happy to go along like lemmings). MS tried forcing Metro on their phones and it was a complete disaster; no one bought them. So they brought it to the desktop and people didn't have a choice. And websites? Are you serious? Who refuses to visit a website because of the shitty UI?
Flat design exists because it's a fad pushed by the shitty UI/UX designers.