You may be technically correct on the definition of "high brow" but read his question again.
He wants an "elite form". He says "light popular entertainment is trivial, disposable, and therefore culturally insignificant". I stand by my criticism. He's a big pretentious gas bag.
People who want elite, culturally significant forms of entertainment are snobs. Entertainment is for entertainment, not for social-climbing, ego-expanding elitism.
It's similar. But fanboys think they're right and you're wrong.
The high brow crowd thinks they're actually better people than you. Like if punk-rock-listeners got in a car accident with opera-goers, the opera-goers should get medical treatment first because they're better people.
High brow means "we're better than you are because of our choice of entertainment".
There are no high brow videogames because the people you think are the better people don't talk about how they're better because they play Y videogame instead of Z videogame.
In other words: STFU you pompous, pretentious snob.
Entertainment isn't high brow or low brow. Different people are entertained differently by different things and no one is better or worse because of their entertainment choices.
I consider it a bit of a double standard to be criticizing Microsoft for "photocopying" on one hand and then unveiling a bunch of features that have been done before.
Are you the consistency police? Is Apple about to lose an important consistency contest?
Just wondering. I'm a little tired of things being criticized for being inconsistent. Who cares? It's marketing, not a criminal trial or a mathematical proof.
What's next? Steve Jobs split an infinitive? (That's why I only buy (Strunk &) White box PCs.)
1. Spend the next 30-40 years breeding and training vicious attack dogs 2. Now you're over 40 and can hear it any more. (Plus, everyone loves dogs -- bonus.)
Yes, people who scare easily and are generally scared of everything. It scares them.
I bet that will be the cause of more than one accident...
Adjusting your iPod while driving is already probably causing accidents. That's a selling point for this feature. It makes it easier to change songs without looking away from the road.
iPods are about music, not about avoiding car accidents. Everything in the world doesn't have to be about avoiding car accidents.
The right to refuse to testify and to refuse to honor subpeonas in a criminal investigation? No. They don't have that right. Nor does anyone else. It's not a right.
There's no need to amend the constitution. There's no "anonymous sources" right in the constitution. Not for reporters, not for anyone. The freedom of the press is the freedom to do things that everyone else can also do.
The Constitution guarentees the right to freedom of the press. That's a right The People have, not a right The Press has (except that they are also part of The People).
The FBI was going to raid some places they thought were linked to terrorist financing. The reporters found out. The reporters called the organizations for comment, in advance of the raids.
Hi, this is Judith Miller of the New York Times. Your organization is going to be raided by the Feds tomorrow to look for evidence in connection with a terrorist financing investigation. Do you have any comment on that?
I think the judges' ruling is correct. Reporters can't be allowed the privilege of anonymous sources when they take these sorts of actions.
Oil will become more expensive (as it already has). As the price goes up, it will become profitable to get oil from sources (like oil sands and oil shale) that were previously much too expensive to compete with the pools of liquid oil just sitting below ground.
At the same time as production from these new sources of oil goes online, the high price of oil will lead to alternative fuels finally becoming an economic (as opposed to an emotional) alternative. Alternative fuel development will increase and act as an economic substitute for oil.
Also, price increases bring about a decrease in demand. Demand for oil may not actually go down unless the price gets very high, but at more moderate prices, the increase in demand will slow, allowing production of oil and the new substitue products to catch up.
Oil will always be available at some price. Even high-school economics provides a framework that allows that to be understood.
Also, the presumption that we'll "run-out" of oil one day presumes that the oil companies are stupid and don't care about how much money they make (or lose). Oil companies know how much oil they own in the ground. Why would they sell you $3-a-gallon oil today if they knew they could just leave it in the ground for 4 years and sell it to you for $10-a-gallon? The future availability of oil is built into the price of gas today.
I looked it up. This more-or-less confirms my skepticism. They sort-of exist, but not in the TV news "we're all going to die" way.
They can destroy a 2-block area. Again, that's similar to what I thought, though a little larger.
Big deal. A chemical attack would be much easier and more devastating. People get all weak-kneed when they hear about nuclear weapons. They're just big explosions.
I've been hearing about these "suitcase bombs" for about 15 years now. But I've never seen any actual evidence they exist. Have you?
Also, you said it could be set off "near" the AFB. How near? A small nuclear blast set off at ground level has limited destructive potential. Similar to a very large non-nuclear blast.
I guess we'll find out then. You'll owe a lot of people an apology for misleading them when the world doesn't end.
One question: Since you know the future, you should be able to make tons of money with that knowledge. Especially, you seem to know all about the future of oil. Have you invested all your money in the oil futures market? Why not? It would seem to be the rational thing to do if you knew the future. Unless you don't...
Economic collapse, massive loss of arable land, an increase in infections + decrease in the quality of our diets (eg no seafood). Rampant inflation (since agricultural commodities will be difficult and transport nigh on impossible without oil, water and soil). The biggest extinction event ever...
What's the historical precdedent for doomsday theories being rational?
Nope. I just don't sympathize at all. If you want to play the games, you can do it by upgrading the firmware. If you don't want to upgrade the firmware, you can't play the games. You have ample choices.
And they're games. You're the victim of a worldwide conspiracy to force you to go through an extra step to play some games. It's the worst atrocity in handheld gaming history! Worse even than the recent Lemming genocide and the Liberty City murders of last year.
Slashdot Mirror
Why did Katrina destroy PS2 and Xbox consoles? We know why.
It's because George Bush doesn't care about black game consoles.
You may be technically correct on the definition of "high brow" but read his question again.
He wants an "elite form". He says "light popular entertainment is trivial, disposable, and therefore culturally insignificant". I stand by my criticism. He's a big pretentious gas bag.
People who want elite, culturally significant forms of entertainment are snobs. Entertainment is for entertainment, not for social-climbing, ego-expanding elitism.
It's similar. But fanboys think they're right and you're wrong.
The high brow crowd thinks they're actually better people than you. Like if punk-rock-listeners got in a car accident with opera-goers, the opera-goers should get medical treatment first because they're better people.
High brow means "we're better than you are because of our choice of entertainment".
There are no high brow videogames because the people you think are the better people don't talk about how they're better because they play Y videogame instead of Z videogame.
In other words: STFU you pompous, pretentious snob.
Entertainment isn't high brow or low brow. Different people are entertained differently by different things and no one is better or worse because of their entertainment choices.
I consider it a bit of a double standard to be criticizing Microsoft for "photocopying" on one hand and then unveiling a bunch of features that have been done before.
Are you the consistency police? Is Apple about to lose an important consistency contest?
Just wondering. I'm a little tired of things being criticized for being inconsistent. Who cares? It's marketing, not a criminal trial or a mathematical proof.
What's next? Steve Jobs split an infinitive? (That's why I only buy (Strunk &) White box PCs.)
Here's the plan:
1. Spend the next 30-40 years breeding and training vicious attack dogs
2. Now you're over 40 and can hear it any more. (Plus, everyone loves dogs -- bonus.)
It's foolproof.
Does that scare anyone else?
Yes, people who scare easily and are generally scared of everything. It scares them.
I bet that will be the cause of more than one accident...
Adjusting your iPod while driving is already probably causing accidents. That's a selling point for this feature. It makes it easier to change songs without looking away from the road.
iPods are about music, not about avoiding car accidents. Everything in the world doesn't have to be about avoiding car accidents.
You do realize that the gun lobby is much better funded than the P2P lobby, right?
Were they lobbying the courts?
The gun industry also has that whole "right to bear arms" thing going for it. I think it might be a factor in their success.
... Hence the broad blank provisions afforded the press in the Constitution.
[Redundant, constitution quote deleted]
I am gonna keep quoting the Constitution till you actually read it.
You seem to be arguing that the press has an unlimited right to do anything they want. Murder their competition, for example. I disagree.
Saying "the constitution says X and it means X, Y, and Z" isn't really an argument, no matter how many times you repeat it.
SO the NY Times doesn't have that right?
The right to refuse to testify and to refuse to honor subpeonas in a criminal investigation? No. They don't have that right. Nor does anyone else. It's not a right.
There's no need to amend the constitution. There's no "anonymous sources" right in the constitution. Not for reporters, not for anyone. The freedom of the press is the freedom to do things that everyone else can also do.
I missed anything about anonymous sources in the constitution. I also missed the "reporters are super-citizens above the laws" part.
Freedom of the press is a right that The People have. It's not a special Get Out of Jail Free Card for the NY Times.
That is an important point.
The Constitution guarentees the right to freedom of the press. That's a right The People have, not a right The Press has (except that they are also part of The People).
This story is very misleading.
The FBI was going to raid some places they thought were linked to terrorist financing. The reporters found out. The reporters called the organizations for comment, in advance of the raids.
Hi, this is Judith Miller of the New York Times. Your organization is going to be raided by the Feds tomorrow to look for evidence in connection with a terrorist financing investigation. Do you have any comment on that?
I think the judges' ruling is correct. Reporters can't be allowed the privilege of anonymous sources when they take these sorts of actions.
WORLD TO END
Women and minorities hardest hit.
Oil will become more expensive (as it already has). As the price goes up, it will become profitable to get oil from sources (like oil sands and oil shale) that were previously much too expensive to compete with the pools of liquid oil just sitting below ground.
At the same time as production from these new sources of oil goes online, the high price of oil will lead to alternative fuels finally becoming an economic (as opposed to an emotional) alternative. Alternative fuel development will increase and act as an economic substitute for oil.
Also, price increases bring about a decrease in demand. Demand for oil may not actually go down unless the price gets very high, but at more moderate prices, the increase in demand will slow, allowing production of oil and the new substitue products to catch up.
Oil will always be available at some price. Even high-school economics provides a framework that allows that to be understood.
Also, the presumption that we'll "run-out" of oil one day presumes that the oil companies are stupid and don't care about how much money they make (or lose). Oil companies know how much oil they own in the ground. Why would they sell you $3-a-gallon oil today if they knew they could just leave it in the ground for 4 years and sell it to you for $10-a-gallon? The future availability of oil is built into the price of gas today.
I looked it up. This more-or-less confirms my skepticism. They sort-of exist, but not in the TV news "we're all going to die" way.
They can destroy a 2-block area. Again, that's similar to what I thought, though a little larger.
Big deal. A chemical attack would be much easier and more devastating. People get all weak-kneed when they hear about nuclear weapons. They're just big explosions.
I've been hearing about these "suitcase bombs" for about 15 years now. But I've never seen any actual evidence they exist. Have you?
Also, you said it could be set off "near" the AFB. How near? A small nuclear blast set off at ground level has limited destructive potential. Similar to a very large non-nuclear blast.
I guess we'll find out then. You'll owe a lot of people an apology for misleading them when the world doesn't end.
One question: Since you know the future, you should be able to make tons of money with that knowledge. Especially, you seem to know all about the future of oil. Have you invested all your money in the oil futures market? Why not? It would seem to be the rational thing to do if you knew the future. Unless you don't...
Economic collapse, massive loss of arable land, an increase in infections + decrease in the quality of our diets (eg no seafood). Rampant inflation (since agricultural commodities will be difficult and transport nigh on impossible without oil, water and soil). The biggest extinction event ever...
What's the historical precdedent for doomsday theories being rational?
Doomsday predictions are always wrong.
Unless, of course, reason is to take peak oil and global warming under advisement.
Are you sure you mean reason and not irrational fear?
How are those possible futures supposed to affect health anyway?
Math is much more than 64% violent. The victims are everywhere.
I can't tell you how much more. The ends don't justify the means and it would be unconscionable.
Do you work for Sony or own a lot of Sony stock?
Nope. I just don't sympathize at all. If you want to play the games, you can do it by upgrading the firmware. If you don't want to upgrade the firmware, you can't play the games. You have ample choices.
And they're games. You're the victim of a worldwide conspiracy to force you to go through an extra step to play some games. It's the worst atrocity in handheld gaming history! Worse even than the recent Lemming genocide and the Liberty City murders of last year.
The games that require new firmware generally include it on the game disc. That means you can play them on your PSP if you follow the instructions.
I know you don't want to. But there's no need for the reality distortion.
You're not a victim. You can get down off the cross any time you want.