Similarly, I would not be surprised if the government enacts a retroactive tax on emails and send us all a bill. Therefore, everyone should immediately switch to using carrier pigeons.
You see, that type of argument can be used to justify any decision, no matter how wacky. There's always a horrible future to be imagined and a way to make myself poorer now that will avoid it. And then when it doesn't come true, you can claim credit!
Argument rejected. Please use real life for justifications instead of imagination. Thanks.
How? When? How is it worth having to use worse video until then?
Patents expire after 20 years. The patents in question will be long gone before Ogg Theora or competing non-patent formats are technically competitive with H.264. And even then, the obvious choice for true believers will be to abandon inferior formats and switch to H.264.
Ogg Theora is technically highly inferior to H.264. All it has going for it is religion and ideology.
Why should Microsoft support your particular belief system over the beliefs of anyone else? Why, especially, should they want their users to have a much worse experience watching internet video?
How about adopting (or adapting) a belief system that leads to better products instead of worse ones?
Why should Sony (or anyone) be interested in your posturing?
You're not offering honest arguments -- you've purposefully left out that you will be connecting to Sony's network. You know this. You know they own their network and only offer access to it based on agreement to certain terms. If you don't connect to their network, they can't execute code on your PS3 and you have no basis to complain. What conclusion can we draw other than that you're being dishonest in your post?
It's like hiring carpet cleaners and then pretending to be outraged that they violated your privacy by entering your house. An honest person wouldn't do that. Someone trying to swindle carpet cleaners might do it though.
I enjoy gaming, not fooling with backups of backups of game saves. A save and a backup are enough. Cloud saves provide an easy means of backup. It's excellent.
Why did the original poster need to complain about it as imperfectly secure and risk-free? Perfection and time-consuming backup procedures are overkill for game saves because of the low value of game saves.
How many redundant bookmarks should I have just in case one gets lost? Maybe I should buy 2 or 3 copies of each book and mark the page in each one, just in case? And I can keep one copy in my bank safety deposit box. Because maintaining this stuff is a good use of time.
They are game saves. Gaming is not banking. If you care that much about the off chance of having to re-play part of your game, consider finding a game that's more fun to play.
I thought the administration was going to focus on jobs. Did they forget about jobs already? (Again?)
Jobs (net, positive jobs) are created when someone actually wants or needs a product and buys it. Net jobs are lost when someone wants a product and he's forced by government to accept an inferior substitute at a higher price to meet someone's political or religious agenda.
What's the alternative to competing? Hiding? Fortress America? Invade and force your personal preferences on them? Protectionism that forces your neighbors to give up on cheaper goods and services? Pretending there's a secret Star-Trek-like utopian answer that's one more law or one more billion dollars in government grants away? Humanity all at once deciding to give up on our nature and act the way that fits your emotional needs?
It's not "logic" that causes the need to compete. We need to compete to survive and prosper. Denial is a coping mechanism, but when you're done coping, you still have the same problems to solve.
Don't you have a variety of petty hatreds that need to be satisfied? Aren't you greedy to receive (or spend) money you didn't earn? Aren't you socialized to feel the emotions you're "supposed" to feel on demand?
No? Then you'll never understand American politics.
Where is the manufacturer's disincentive for distributing deadly product?
The problem with vaccines is that there's so little incentive for companies to make them at all. Add even the chance of a disincentive and they'll just chuck the whole business rather than lose money. And there will be no vaccines.
Of course, you could just add a huge premium to the price to pay for lawyers and liability insurance. You want to quadruple the price and give all the extra money to lawyers and insurance companies?
Fraudsters do not dominate the research community.
It doesn't take fraud to come up with an incorrect answer. Appeals to authority can often result in acceptance of incorrect answers whether there's fraud or not.
Maybe you guys should think about this the next time someone tries to advance a hate campaign against Big-Whatever? Maybe, just maybe, everyone running these sorts of hate campaigns has a similar motive?
The energy, food and beverage, agricultural, mining, banking, and manufacturing industries (and everyone else in the private sector except trial lawyers) could use a little fair-minded consideration.
You don't really have much of a point here. Wakefield had all the credentials that Oprah and Jenny McCarthy lack. His input was no more reliable.
Appeals to authority on any particular question are only useful to the extent that the authorities have integrity and (for lack of a better word) honor. Does the scientific community routinely highlight the need for these virtues? Do they celebrate them? Who won the Nobel prize for integrity this year?
Usually, the answers to questions like that are "I don't care" or "shut up". People want their biases validated and they don't want to hear about the consequences. It worked ok for them, right? If all the consequences fall on others, then what's the problem?
Roads and airports actually make sense without subsidies. If all subsidies stopped, roads and air travel would continue to thrive. Only passenger rail requires subsidies to exist. No one will build a private-sector passenger rail line.
Also, roads and airports are actually useful for transporting freight in addition to passengers. Freight transport is actually more important than passenger transport, and high-speed rail is poorly suited to freight transportation.
You argue against suburbs as if arguing against them makes them disappear. Rail is definitely suited to fantasy worlds where everyone lives in Manhattan or Hong Kong or Tokyo. We should build fantasy trains in those fantasy worlds with fantasy funds. I'm sure they'll be fantastic.
Old arguments persist when they're not refuted. It also helps that they're correct.
If you happen to live near a train station and have a destination near a train station, and your schedule happens to coincide with the train schedule, then trains might be better than a car. Or if cars are unavailable for some reason. Train passengers would still probably choose alternate transportation if their tickets weren't massively subsidized.
But cars are more convenient for general transportation. Busses are cheaper than trains. And airplanes are cheaper than trains and faster. Many coastal airports are near the city center and transportation to city centers is always available.
High speed rail usually only makes sense if it is artificially subsidized and/or if competing transportation modes are artificially restricted. In the real world, it is second rate at best.
It's only savvy if you get something of high value at a low price. High speed rail can hardly be considered of high value.
For freight, high speed rail is less efficient than ordinary rail. The time savings isn't worth the extra fuel consumption. Freight doesn't care if it takes an extra few hours to reach it's destination.
For passengers, high speed rail is slower than air travel, less convenient than travel by car, and it takes more expensive infrastructure than either alternative.
High speed rail transport is for the edification of government officials and it can be celebrated by folks with a religious, romantic, or otherwise emotional attachment to trains. But, except in an isolated case or two, it is not a business, much less a savvy one.
Slashdot Mirror
Similarly, I would not be surprised if the government enacts a retroactive tax on emails and send us all a bill. Therefore, everyone should immediately switch to using carrier pigeons.
You see, that type of argument can be used to justify any decision, no matter how wacky. There's always a horrible future to be imagined and a way to make myself poorer now that will avoid it. And then when it doesn't come true, you can claim credit!
Argument rejected. Please use real life for justifications instead of imagination. Thanks.
Does that include better walled gardens topped with better razor wire?
Even if that were an apt analogy, it would depend on what's inside and what's outside the wall.
Asceticism isn't for everyone.
Because it might be better for users.
How? When? How is it worth having to use worse video until then?
Patents expire after 20 years. The patents in question will be long gone before Ogg Theora or competing non-patent formats are technically competitive with H.264. And even then, the obvious choice for true believers will be to abandon inferior formats and switch to H.264.
The fact that format X is inferior is not a valid reason to not support it.
Yes it is.
Ogg Theora is technically highly inferior to H.264. All it has going for it is religion and ideology.
Why should Microsoft support your particular belief system over the beliefs of anyone else? Why, especially, should they want their users to have a much worse experience watching internet video?
How about adopting (or adapting) a belief system that leads to better products instead of worse ones?
Why should Sony (or anyone) be interested in your posturing?
You're not offering honest arguments -- you've purposefully left out that you will be connecting to Sony's network. You know this. You know they own their network and only offer access to it based on agreement to certain terms. If you don't connect to their network, they can't execute code on your PS3 and you have no basis to complain. What conclusion can we draw other than that you're being dishonest in your post?
It's like hiring carpet cleaners and then pretending to be outraged that they violated your privacy by entering your house. An honest person wouldn't do that. Someone trying to swindle carpet cleaners might do it though.
I enjoy gaming, not fooling with backups of backups of game saves. A save and a backup are enough. Cloud saves provide an easy means of backup. It's excellent.
Why did the original poster need to complain about it as imperfectly secure and risk-free? Perfection and time-consuming backup procedures are overkill for game saves because of the low value of game saves.
How many redundant bookmarks should I have just in case one gets lost? Maybe I should buy 2 or 3 copies of each book and mark the page in each one, just in case? And I can keep one copy in my bank safety deposit box. Because maintaining this stuff is a good use of time.
They are game saves. Gaming is not banking. If you care that much about the off chance of having to re-play part of your game, consider finding a game that's more fun to play.
I thought the administration was going to focus on jobs. Did they forget about jobs already? (Again?)
Jobs (net, positive jobs) are created when someone actually wants or needs a product and buys it. Net jobs are lost when someone wants a product and he's forced by government to accept an inferior substitute at a higher price to meet someone's political or religious agenda.
What's the alternative to competing? Hiding? Fortress America? Invade and force your personal preferences on them? Protectionism that forces your neighbors to give up on cheaper goods and services? Pretending there's a secret Star-Trek-like utopian answer that's one more law or one more billion dollars in government grants away? Humanity all at once deciding to give up on our nature and act the way that fits your emotional needs?
It's not "logic" that causes the need to compete. We need to compete to survive and prosper. Denial is a coping mechanism, but when you're done coping, you still have the same problems to solve.
Anger and fantasy are your solutions then? Congratulations. You can be a useful idiot for someone's agenda.
Don't you have a variety of petty hatreds that need to be satisfied? Aren't you greedy to receive (or spend) money you didn't earn? Aren't you socialized to feel the emotions you're "supposed" to feel on demand?
No? Then you'll never understand American politics.
Why do we care what David Gewirtz thinks?
His big ideas seem to be "smart" power (or smartness in general) and clean energy. In other words, the same nonsense fluff you've heard 10000 times.
Where is the manufacturer's disincentive for distributing deadly product?
The problem with vaccines is that there's so little incentive for companies to make them at all. Add even the chance of a disincentive and they'll just chuck the whole business rather than lose money. And there will be no vaccines.
Of course, you could just add a huge premium to the price to pay for lawyers and liability insurance. You want to quadruple the price and give all the extra money to lawyers and insurance companies?
Fraudsters do not dominate the research community.
It doesn't take fraud to come up with an incorrect answer. Appeals to authority can often result in acceptance of incorrect answers whether there's fraud or not.
Thanks for illustrating the difference between fair-minded consideration and generalized hate-mongering and demonization.
There are at least two sides to every issue. Fair-minded consideration considers them both. Activist demonization does not.
Maybe you guys should think about this the next time someone tries to advance a hate campaign against Big-Whatever? Maybe, just maybe, everyone running these sorts of hate campaigns has a similar motive?
The energy, food and beverage, agricultural, mining, banking, and manufacturing industries (and everyone else in the private sector except trial lawyers) could use a little fair-minded consideration.
You don't really have much of a point here. Wakefield had all the credentials that Oprah and Jenny McCarthy lack. His input was no more reliable.
Appeals to authority on any particular question are only useful to the extent that the authorities have integrity and (for lack of a better word) honor. Does the scientific community routinely highlight the need for these virtues? Do they celebrate them? Who won the Nobel prize for integrity this year?
Usually, the answers to questions like that are "I don't care" or "shut up". People want their biases validated and they don't want to hear about the consequences. It worked ok for them, right? If all the consequences fall on others, then what's the problem?
Just wondering, how many of these people only have one child?
If you put all your eggs in one basket, you might tend to be overprotective of that basket.
Roads and airports actually make sense without subsidies. If all subsidies stopped, roads and air travel would continue to thrive. Only passenger rail requires subsidies to exist. No one will build a private-sector passenger rail line.
Also, roads and airports are actually useful for transporting freight in addition to passengers. Freight transport is actually more important than passenger transport, and high-speed rail is poorly suited to freight transportation.
You argue against suburbs as if arguing against them makes them disappear. Rail is definitely suited to fantasy worlds where everyone lives in Manhattan or Hong Kong or Tokyo. We should build fantasy trains in those fantasy worlds with fantasy funds. I'm sure they'll be fantastic.
Old arguments persist when they're not refuted. It also helps that they're correct.
That doesn't result in a ticket commission from American Airlines.
If you happen to live near a train station and have a destination near a train station, and your schedule happens to coincide with the train schedule, then trains might be better than a car. Or if cars are unavailable for some reason. Train passengers would still probably choose alternate transportation if their tickets weren't massively subsidized.
But cars are more convenient for general transportation. Busses are cheaper than trains. And airplanes are cheaper than trains and faster. Many coastal airports are near the city center and transportation to city centers is always available.
High speed rail usually only makes sense if it is artificially subsidized and/or if competing transportation modes are artificially restricted. In the real world, it is second rate at best.
It's only savvy if you get something of high value at a low price. High speed rail can hardly be considered of high value.
For freight, high speed rail is less efficient than ordinary rail. The time savings isn't worth the extra fuel consumption. Freight doesn't care if it takes an extra few hours to reach it's destination.
For passengers, high speed rail is slower than air travel, less convenient than travel by car, and it takes more expensive infrastructure than either alternative.
High speed rail transport is for the edification of government officials and it can be celebrated by folks with a religious, romantic, or otherwise emotional attachment to trains. But, except in an isolated case or two, it is not a business, much less a savvy one.