i'm not arguing that any possible distracting device in a car should be banned outright. I'm arguing with the parent poster who claims that he was an excellent driver and apparently that certain laws shouldn't be enacted. i'd rather not have cellphones be banned, but i'm all in favor of huge fines and/or punishments if someone's cellphone/device use results in an accident.
When they make laws like this, its based on the idea of lowest common denominators. Its how speed limits are *supposed* to be determined, an average vehicle in good repair can take a corner safely at a certain speed. Sure, a Porsche may be able to take the corner at twice the speed, not everybody has a Porsche, and not everyone can drive one correctly. So, worst case scenario, you can't use a computer in your front seat while you're driving. you get a little less work done on a long trip. Someone else in the same situation: a multicar accident with fatalities is prevented.
The first (and last) time my dad took his car in for a simple check engine light warning, they replaced the computer that turns on the check engine light, because it was giving too many false positives. It was about 10 years ago, and the part ran about $250. needless to say, he had them put the old part back in.
i don't have a microcenter anywhere close to me, but i did check best buy, CC, Omax, Odepot, compusa, and even target and walmart (these are in the store, mind you, not through the online ordering system) and none had any cheaper than $30.
As it is, if someone gets a hold of one of my credit cards, the only thing that will protect me is that message 'check id' that i write on my signature line. half the time the cashier ignores it.
as far as i can tell the entire reason behind this is that the card never leaves your hand. in a restuarant like your mentioning. the waitstaff would have to bring some type of wireless device to my table for me to pay. so there would be two instances where a sneaky individual apart from the server could intercept my info.
this doesn't seem like too much of a convinience, it sounds more like a way to get businesses to buy another piece of equipment from the CC companies.
beyond that, i have a wallet. my cards fit into a number of little slots in it. its pretty compact. but now i see having to carry around another keychain of devices.
I'm impressed by how much time you've spent on this. I'm also surprised (although i shouldn't be, i was waiting for it) that you chose to again advertise the site. At this point, anyone who is still reading this has noticed you've posted the site 3 times now, which just supports my theory that you have some type of alignment with the author. Personally, i've wasted my lunch hour on the last reply, and i feel thats about enough.
I've had serious doubts about the message of the original hardy article. its not as statistical as i remembered it (which you chose to ignore) but still very flawed. It's changed since i've read it 8 months ago, but not for the better. He's eliminated one real weak argument completely, but instead of continuing to trim the padding, hes added more to it. a few of his arguments that he himself admitted were invalid he seems to resupported, ignoring his earlier thoughts. What little credibility i had for the author and his work in its original form has actually lessened over time. His inability to accept a less than 10-point criticism destroys what future credibility i could possibly give.
as for you.
you've been extremely unprofessional about this entire thread. you've ignored just about everything i've said since my first post, you've misquoted me, you've called me a liar 4 times now (5 if you count your theory that i made up the fact that he's actually changed the article), you've ingored the evidence i gave for my opinion on the article, you've attacked my credibilty and personally insulted me.
Is there any particular reason why I would want to feel sympathetic towards the Cylons? The real Battlestar Galactica was fine with them simply being evil.
I've realized as i've gotten older that the pure evil/snidley wiplash type isn't very believable to me. i don't view it as a form of politcal correctness, just simply feasiblity. Theres no rules on what motivation it has to be, in fact, its easier to cheer for the good guy if you have nothing in common with or cannot understand what drives the bad guy. but a reason would be nice.
There's plenty of escapism fiction out there, it just tends to be not very deep. The new BG is trying to be somewhat deep, and i appreciate that, but im not sure the masses will.
Actually, you missed one of my first points, that being, that the article has changed since i read it back in april of 2003. The following mostly refers to an earlier version of the article.
1: His first point was, orginally, that he had argued that the lockheed-martin plant was unfairly portrayed. this arguement was excised completely from the article.
2: the NRA ralley. The speech was edited and deceptive. the main point was the city asked the NRA not to come, the NRA came anyway. Moore blew this point, if he would have left the speech alone he still would have had a valid point.
3. the cartoon sequence. I took it as a illustration of the white mans irrational fear of non-whites. The author wants to use it as a smear saying that the NRA and the KKK are one and the same. i personally don't believe the NRA and the KKK are the same. each is a fear-based special interest group.
4: the grade school kid shooting. The original point said that the kid was trouble to begin with.
the segment was about how the boy's mother had to work 2 hours away (a state-sponsored work/antiwelfare program) and couldn't raise him properly, so she left him in care of her brother, a drug dealer.
i dunno....does that mean if his mother could have been better off financially, that the kid still would have shot the little girl?
5: stated that the money was Humanitarian aid. the us gave the same type of aid to iraq, most of it ended up going to saddam. - the author originally argued the accuracy of the numbers.
6: the murder rate stats. my own research stated that there were 5 times as many handgun deaths in the us per capita than in any other country in the world. Moores said 7 times. the numbers he had at the time supported that. that's an inaccuracy. the point was the same.
7: buying bullets required 'proper' creditials. the stories i read were exactly that vague. not that he couldnt have, but that he could. The store sold him ammunition. It probably wasn't supposed to, but it did.
7b: the plaque on the b52. it was paraphrased but probably accurate. unless the fighter plane shot down didn't result in the death of the pilot, who may have been russian, and of course a heavy bomber could have inflicted no causualties during its bombing run. this is a nitpick.
8: originally, the author had said about the heston/racist issue:
"Upon reviewing the movie again, I'd have to say that Moore does not make that point, although many of his viewers hold it after watching." he completely invalidated this point himself. yet he left it in.
9: the author suggests that the movie condemns fear by using fear. by showing fear. vicious circle, isnt it? The movie was about fear. it's wrong to illustrate that?
10: his point was that he originally thought the movie was about gun control. he then stated it wasn't. this is another one he self-invalidated yet left in.
i was mistake. its 20% statistics (the money/aid and the murder rate) and over 50% nitpicks (1,3,4,7,..hell and 8-10). wow...reviewing this i see actually less validity. my memory switched the 2 and the 5.
The article has changed since then. he's gotten rid of one incredibly weak arguement and changed his mind on the sudden re-validity of two others.
also, if you want to use the terms extensively and analyzed together, in quotes, make sure i actually said that. the only person who said that was you.
So, let me see if i've got this right. I said the article was crap. you disagreed. I said that there was 2-3 good arguements in the article out of 10 (simple math, my estimate made that, at most, a 30% accurate.) You responded by listing 3 arguements that were accurate.
So basically, you agreed with me.
Thereafter you accuse me of being a liar in that i never read the article (based on what? the fact that i thought a paper that had well more than half invalid agruements was crap?).
Then you advertise the paper again? what, are you getting a kickback from them?
If the guy had written a short paper on these three things that were wrong with the film, i couldnt argue with that. But he had to get to that mystic number 10, and he had to pad it to do so. So it's crap.
When i did read this article, way back when the movie came out, it was 50% statistics and had already been redited twice to admit for the authors inaccuracies. I spent 2 hours going over his figures, his sources (or, more often than not, lack of sources) and finally figured out the guy had maybe 3 good points out of the ten he started with. at that point, i was pissed off that the guy had wasted my time on 'throughly invalidating' the movie.
If the guy was upset that the movie was inaccurate fine. point out the mistakes and move on. But no, he had to make up crap to pad his list. and, apparently, the idea that he is constantly rediting his work when he gets called on this isn't doing anything for my faith in his credibility.
christ, not the hardly-law crap again. look, check into the guys figures. over half of this arguement is on statistics, and it seems Columbine was more accurate than not. the guy sets up this stupid top ten list then decides to himself admit that 2 or 3 of his points were total bullshit.
I'll say this much. he had 2 or 3 good points. but thats it.
Listen people, if you can't come up with 10 valid points, don't pad your list. it just makes you look stupid.
Millions of kids are exposed to violence through movies, tv, video games, hell...real life. oddly there aren't millions of school shootings. The majority of people know what they see on tv is not real, and thats not how people act.
realize that 50 or 100 years ago, there were less people than today. realize that simple statistics dictate that the odd occurance of ultraviolence is going to be more probable with a larger population.
realize that not every person in the world is rational. some are really messed up. don't blame the world around them. Blame them.
Do you expect them to go through all tens of thousands of people? well, if i was trying to catch someone in an illegal act, i'd definately make sure i was correct in accusing them. Otherwise, i'd expect a countersuit. so would i expect them to make sure they accused guilty people, no. In fact, i hope they start sending out more and more blanket notices like this. It only makes them look worse in the eyes of the public, and eventually they'll try to sue someone with alot of spare time, money, legal ability and hopefully innocence.
exactly. a friend of mine tried to convince me that dvds would replace cds in a few years. his thought was given the option of having a bands entire catalog on a dvd. the problem was new bands don't have that much material, and a 4-5 hour audio dvd would undoubtably cost more...its bad enough to have a $15 cd stolen, what about a $50 dvd? I also do the majority of my music listening in a car or in the background. lyrics, cover art, and video are simply distractions in that case.
and expanded audio is wasted on music, in my opinion. on a movie, when things happen to the sides or behind and you hear that, its useful. but in most of my music the action happens in front. Behind and to the sides are those idiots who wont shut up during a concert.
hold up, thats completely incorrect. the 10 gig ipod does NOT come with a remote, case or mp3 recording. For $50 you can get WAV recording via an add-on microphone module.
if you can find an apple store with 15 gig ipods still in stock, you can get one for $329 (i think) under an educational discount (you need a student id or other proof of enrollment to a college), which do come with a remote and case.
Actually, he said it has a 'remote control feature', he said nothing about an lcd. Honestly, the remote control is only standard on the midrange and up models, so he should concede the point, but don't put words in peoples mouths.
you'd have to do the same thing if you use almost any other commercial music download service. Hell, some of them won't let you play music unless you are on your own primary PC (or an 'approved' music player)
If you are going to buy music electronicly, you are going to have to deal with some type of DRM. Thats not the fault of the reseller, thats the fault of the labels and the RIAA. at least give credit where it's due.
InCopy isn't new (goes back at least as far as InDesign), but being apparently available as a consumer product is (Previously, you had to buy it through a systems integrator.)
It's designed to manage text for newspapers/magazines, especially those with multiple editions, and to provide text editing capabilities.
Slashdot Mirror
i'm not arguing that any possible distracting device in a car should be banned outright. I'm arguing with the parent poster who claims that he was an excellent driver and apparently that certain laws shouldn't be enacted.
i'd rather not have cellphones be banned, but i'm all in favor of huge fines and/or punishments if someone's cellphone/device use results in an accident.
When they make laws like this, its based on the idea of lowest common denominators. Its how speed limits are *supposed* to be determined, an average vehicle in good repair can take a corner safely at a certain speed. Sure, a Porsche may be able to take the corner at twice the speed, not everybody has a Porsche, and not everyone can drive one correctly.
So, worst case scenario, you can't use a computer in your front seat while you're driving. you get a little less work done on a long trip.
Someone else in the same situation: a multicar accident with fatalities is prevented.
The first (and last) time my dad took his car in for a simple check engine light warning, they replaced the computer that turns on the check engine light, because it was giving too many false positives. It was about 10 years ago, and the part ran about $250. needless to say, he had them put the old part back in.
i don't have a microcenter anywhere close to me, but i did check best buy, CC, Omax, Odepot, compusa, and even target and walmart (these are in the store, mind you, not through the online ordering system) and none had any cheaper than $30.
try firewire cables. cheapest i found retail for a 6pin>6pin was $30. the apple store has them for $20.
yeah, thats about it, though.
As it is, if someone gets a hold of one of my credit cards, the only thing that will protect me is that message 'check id' that i write on my signature line. half the time the cashier ignores it.
as far as i can tell the entire reason behind this is that the card never leaves your hand. in a restuarant like your mentioning. the waitstaff would have to bring some type of wireless device to my table for me to pay. so there would be two instances where a sneaky individual apart from the server could intercept my info.
this doesn't seem like too much of a convinience, it sounds more like a way to get businesses to buy another piece of equipment from the CC companies.
beyond that, i have a wallet. my cards fit into a number of little slots in it. its pretty compact. but now i see having to carry around another keychain of devices.
I'm impressed by how much time you've spent on this. I'm also surprised (although i shouldn't be, i was waiting for it) that you chose to again advertise the site. At this point, anyone who is still reading this has noticed you've posted the site 3 times now, which just supports my theory that you have some type of alignment with the author. Personally, i've wasted my lunch hour on the last reply, and i feel thats about enough.
I've had serious doubts about the message of the original hardy article. its not as statistical as i remembered it (which you chose to ignore) but still very flawed. It's changed since i've read it 8 months ago, but not for the better. He's eliminated one real weak argument completely, but instead of continuing to trim the padding, hes added more to it. a few of his arguments that he himself admitted were invalid he seems to resupported, ignoring his earlier thoughts. What little credibility i had for the author and his work in its original form has actually lessened over time. His inability to accept a less than 10-point criticism destroys what future credibility i could possibly give.
as for you.
you've been extremely unprofessional about this entire thread. you've ignored just about everything i've said since my first post, you've misquoted me, you've called me a liar 4 times now (5 if you count your theory that i made up the fact that he's actually changed the article), you've ingored the evidence i gave for my opinion on the article, you've attacked my credibilty and personally insulted me.
You are an asshole. fuck off.
Is there any particular reason why I would want to feel sympathetic towards the Cylons? The real Battlestar Galactica was fine with them simply being evil.
I've realized as i've gotten older that the pure evil/snidley wiplash type isn't very believable to me. i don't view it as a form of politcal correctness, just simply feasiblity. Theres no rules on what motivation it has to be, in fact, its easier to cheer for the good guy if you have nothing in common with or cannot understand what drives the bad guy. but a reason would be nice.
There's plenty of escapism fiction out there, it just tends to be not very deep. The new BG is trying to be somewhat deep, and i appreciate that, but im not sure the masses will.
Actually, you missed one of my first points, that being, that the article has changed since i read it back in april of 2003. The following mostly refers to an earlier version of the article.
1: His first point was, orginally, that he had argued that the lockheed-martin plant was unfairly portrayed. this arguement was excised completely from the article.
2: the NRA ralley. The speech was edited and deceptive. the main point was the city asked the NRA not to come, the NRA came anyway. Moore blew this point, if he would have left the speech alone he still would have had a valid point.
3. the cartoon sequence. I took it as a illustration of the white mans irrational fear of non-whites. The author wants to use it as a smear saying that the NRA and the KKK are one and the same. i personally don't believe the NRA and the KKK are the same. each is a fear-based special interest group.
4: the grade school kid shooting. The original point said that the kid was trouble to begin with.
the segment was about how the boy's mother had to work 2 hours away (a state-sponsored work/antiwelfare program) and couldn't raise him properly, so she left him in care of her brother, a drug dealer.
i dunno....does that mean if his mother could have been better off financially, that the kid still would have shot the little girl?
5: stated that the money was Humanitarian aid. the us gave the same type of aid to iraq, most of it ended up going to saddam. - the author originally argued the accuracy of the numbers.
6: the murder rate stats. my own research stated that there were 5 times as many handgun deaths in the us per capita than in any other country in the world. Moores said 7 times. the numbers he had at the time supported that. that's an inaccuracy. the point was the same.
7: buying bullets required 'proper' creditials. the stories i read were exactly that vague. not that he couldnt have, but that he could. The store sold him ammunition. It probably wasn't supposed to, but it did.
7b: the plaque on the b52. it was paraphrased but probably accurate. unless the fighter plane shot down didn't result in the death of the pilot, who may have been russian, and of course a heavy bomber could have inflicted no causualties during its bombing run. this is a nitpick.
8: originally, the author had said about the heston/racist issue:
"Upon reviewing the movie again, I'd have to say
that Moore does not make that point, although many of his viewers hold it after watching."
he completely invalidated this point himself. yet he left it in.
9: the author suggests that the movie condemns fear by using fear. by showing fear. vicious circle, isnt it?
The movie was about fear. it's wrong to illustrate that?
10: his point was that he originally thought the movie was about gun control. he then stated it wasn't. this is another one he self-invalidated yet left in.
i was mistake. its 20% statistics (the money/aid and the murder rate) and over 50% nitpicks (1,3,4,7,..hell and 8-10). wow...reviewing this i see actually less validity. my memory switched the 2 and the 5.
The article has changed since then. he's gotten rid of one incredibly weak arguement and changed his mind on the sudden re-validity of two others.
also, if you want to use the terms extensively and analyzed together, in quotes, make sure i actually said that. the only person who said that was you.
So, let me see if i've got this right. I said the article was crap. you disagreed. I said that there was 2-3 good arguements in the article out of 10 (simple math, my estimate made that, at most, a 30% accurate.) You responded by listing 3 arguements that were accurate.
So basically, you agreed with me.
Thereafter you accuse me of being a liar in that i never read the article (based on what? the fact that i thought a paper that had well more than half invalid agruements was crap?).
Then you advertise the paper again? what, are you getting a kickback from them?
If the guy had written a short paper on these three things that were wrong with the film, i couldnt argue with that. But he had to get to that mystic number 10, and he had to pad it to do so. So it's crap.
When i did read this article, way back when the movie came out, it was 50% statistics and had already been redited twice to admit for the authors inaccuracies. I spent 2 hours going over his figures, his sources (or, more often than not, lack of sources) and finally figured out the guy had maybe 3 good points out of the ten he started with. at that point, i was pissed off that the guy had wasted my time on 'throughly invalidating' the movie.
If the guy was upset that the movie was inaccurate fine. point out the mistakes and move on. But no, he had to make up crap to pad his list. and, apparently, the idea that he is constantly rediting his work when he gets called on this isn't doing anything for my faith in his credibility.
christ, not the hardly-law crap again. look, check into the guys figures. over half of this arguement is on statistics, and it seems Columbine was more accurate than not. the guy sets up this stupid top ten list then decides to himself admit that 2 or 3 of his points were total bullshit.
I'll say this much. he had 2 or 3 good points. but thats it.
Listen people, if you can't come up with 10 valid points, don't pad your list. it just makes you look stupid.
You know who i blame?
The kid.
Millions of kids are exposed to violence through movies, tv, video games, hell...real life. oddly there aren't millions of school shootings. The majority of people know what they see on tv is not real, and thats not how people act.
realize that 50 or 100 years ago, there were less people than today. realize that simple statistics dictate that the odd occurance of ultraviolence is going to be more probable with a larger population.
realize that not every person in the world is rational. some are really messed up. don't blame the world around them. Blame them.
'cause apple waits for YOU to buy a product and uses that info to determine whether or not to release updates?
Do you expect them to go through all tens of thousands of people?
well, if i was trying to catch someone in an illegal act, i'd definately make sure i was correct in accusing them. Otherwise, i'd expect a countersuit. so would i expect them to make sure they accused guilty people, no. In fact, i hope they start sending out more and more blanket notices like this. It only makes them look worse in the eyes of the public, and eventually they'll try to sue someone with alot of spare time, money, legal ability and hopefully innocence.
so, how much of that $250K goes to the artist? i'm assuming that they do get a majority of that, after all, it's their money, right?
exactly. a friend of mine tried to convince me that dvds would replace cds in a few years. his thought was given the option of having a bands entire catalog on a dvd. the problem was new bands don't have that much material, and a 4-5 hour audio dvd would undoubtably cost more...its bad enough to have a $15 cd stolen, what about a $50 dvd? I also do the majority of my music listening in a car or in the background. lyrics, cover art, and video are simply distractions in that case.
and expanded audio is wasted on music, in my opinion. on a movie, when things happen to the sides or behind and you hear that, its useful. but in most of my music the action happens in front. Behind and to the sides are those idiots who wont shut up during a concert.
Yeah, but they just cut off support for IE mac, well, unless you account for MSN subscribers.
lemme guess.
Survey
Name:
email:
address:
SS#:
question one: have you ever downloaded mp3s from the internet to your computer ? y/n
question two: are you currently sharing these songs, or did you DELETE THEM ALL?
sharing/deleted
On the other hand, this particular story is more akin to the CD player making it impossible for you to ever use your record player again.
except that you can just reinstall musicmatch (unplug and replug) and use it like you did before.
hold up, thats completely incorrect. the 10 gig ipod does NOT come with a remote, case or mp3 recording. For $50 you can get WAV recording via an add-on microphone module.
if you can find an apple store with 15 gig ipods still in stock, you can get one for $329 (i think) under an educational discount (you need a student id or other proof of enrollment to a college), which do come with a remote and case.
Actually, he said it has a 'remote control feature', he said nothing about an lcd. Honestly, the remote control is only standard on the midrange and up models, so he should concede the point, but don't put words in peoples mouths.
you'd have to do the same thing if you use almost any other commercial music download service. Hell, some of them won't let you play music unless you are on your own primary PC (or an 'approved' music player)
If you are going to buy music electronicly, you are going to have to deal with some type of DRM. Thats not the fault of the reseller, thats the fault of the labels and the RIAA. at least give credit where it's due.
InCopy isn't new (goes back at least as far as InDesign), but being apparently available as a consumer product is (Previously, you had to buy it through a systems integrator.)
It's designed to manage text for newspapers/magazines, especially those with multiple editions, and to provide text editing capabilities.
Actually, it went gold today, supposively available Sept. 30. Hope MS/Bungie is smart enough not to charge $50US for a two-year-old game.