Well, the article summary has now been edited to read that there were "free food and drinks". But that raises an even more interesting point, as the "free complementary" line was actually a quote from the linked article. The site is slashdotted, so I can't check for sure, but I guess the original article has not been corrected.
So the line was correct as it stood, in the sense that "free complementary" was the original text from the quoted article. The editors should have left the quote alone, or paraphrased the sentence entirely, but they shouldn't be altering text inside quotatation marks.
Of course, the best solution would be to not link to such a half-baked article to begin with.
I am not quite sure what you mean by this phrase, but in general one cannot tie ID to science unless one completely distorts what science is. The ID approach is to say origins are outside the bounds of testability because the observed complexity in the natural world can only come from a creator. Invoking a creator means that one inherently believes in supernatural origins, which is everyone's right, but not part scientific process, and goes against the idea of reproducible experiments.
Which is why the phrase you used, "tie ID to science" is so loaded.
Oh, I don't know. I think that Slashdot has always been much like it is today. You can see it as a good thing, or a bad thing, but at least they are consistent. Poor spelling, off base comments at the ends of postings, lame articles that make the front page, and the dubious practice of calling themselves editors when they don't have been here at least as long as I have, back in '96 or '97.
That said, I keep coming back for more. Go figure.
you were able to get into the mindset the movie prepares for you, you'll find these characters as believable and as real as they were meant to be. If you found yourself bored and not at all involved within the first 10 minutes, blame it on your lack of imagination.
and even better:
It's easy to be biased toward Charlize, and if I were capable of being biased toward anyone, it would be her, but I managed to control myself. The way I saw it was that the movie was fantastic and Charlize was phenomenal, but if anyone else had done it (as well as or better) and had that same "it" factor that Charlize has flowing out of every pore on her gorgeous face, I would have felt exactly the same about the film as I do right now. And that is true.
Proof that the ability for any schmo to publish their thoughts for all to see is not necessarily a good thing!
and only an ideologue would suggest the artificial tripling of gas prices
I don't know this for certain, but I had thought that gas prices in the US were kept artificially low through the use of subsidies. Anybody out there know the details?
Care to wager on that? I will bet that I can use a "lossy" codec and you will not be able to distinguish the lossy encoding from the original CD in blind listening tests.
I am sure you could, too. Any lossy codec would be good if you use a high enough bit rate.
But take a lossy codec at 128 kbs (the bit rate described in this article) and then encode it into another lossy codec with a low bit rate. That is what I was referring to.
I understand that a lot of pop music undergoes compression. But that is in the mixing and mastering stage, and could be argued that it is part of the artistry that goes into making the music of a particular song. (I'll let others debate on the wisdom of using the words artistry and pop music in the same breath).
However this is much different than selling music in a lossy codec. Of course many audiofiles argue that the quantization on a CD is not good enough for hi-fidelty. But converting from one lossy codec to another is a much bigger hit in my opinion and even non-audiofiles can hear the distortion.
"This 128 reusable drive contains 29 songs, including the band's 2004 "Barenaked for the Holidays" album, in MP3 format along with live tracks, in-concert spoken quips, album art, photos, videos and more."
But that is the third paragraph of a very long, three paragraph article. It is understandable you wouldn't want to spend so much time reading such a lenghty text.
'Lossy' is what I meant to say
on
Barenaked USB Drive
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Oops, I don't refuse to pay for lossless compression! I meant to say I refuse to pay for lossy compression.
The reason I don't buy from online services is I refuse to pay money for lossless codecs. If I am paying for music, I want to get all the bits, and then determine for myself which lossless codec I use to compress the song.
I would hate to see situations like this, where albums are only avialable in a lossy format, become the norm
No. The set I am describing does not contain anything that is not itself or the teaspoon on the corner of my desk. Therefore, the moon is not in the set; you are not in the set; the number 5 is not in the set. There is nothing in the set except itself and the teaspoon.
I see. Does that mean the set also does not contain things with a sense of humor?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the article summary has now been edited to read that there were "free food and drinks". But that raises an even more interesting point, as the "free complementary" line was actually a quote from the linked article. The site is slashdotted, so I can't check for sure, but I guess the original article has not been corrected.
So the line was correct as it stood, in the sense that "free complementary" was the original text from the quoted article. The editors should have left the quote alone, or paraphrased the sentence entirely, but they shouldn't be altering text inside quotatation marks.
Of course, the best solution would be to not link to such a half-baked article to begin with.
Well 'i' and 'e' are clearly taken. But what about the other, unloved vowels?
Someone needs to make an oBook, or a uRadio. Or maybe even a yPod.
Not that would be INNOVATION!
there are many ways I can tie ID to Science
I am not quite sure what you mean by this phrase, but in general one cannot tie ID to science unless one completely distorts what science is. The ID approach is to say origins are outside the bounds of testability because the observed complexity in the natural world can only come from a creator. Invoking a creator means that one inherently believes in supernatural origins, which is everyone's right, but not part scientific process, and goes against the idea of reproducible experiments.
Which is why the phrase you used, "tie ID to science" is so loaded.
Sure they found errors in Wikipedia and Britannica, but which one can you go back to and correct?
Which one can I go back and introduce deliberate errors?
So, now they are encouraging addiction to high fat, high calorie diets.
I think they have been doing that for a while now...
See? Nothing changes.
I don't have the nerve to call myself an editor...
Oh, I don't know. I think that Slashdot has always been much like it is today. You can see it as a good thing, or a bad thing, but at least they are consistent. Poor spelling, off base comments at the ends of postings, lame articles that make the front page, and the dubious practice of calling themselves editors when they don't have been here at least as long as I have, back in '96 or '97.
That said, I keep coming back for more. Go figure.
I liked your .sig. Is that a quote from someone?
Did Taco actually RTFA? This isn't a review at all, it's just some TNA starved sci-fi geek saying "no, it isn't" a whole bunch.
The article was written by BinaryVixen who is identified, on the BinaryIdiot forums, as the Webmaster's girlfriend.
Lucky webmaster!
FTFA:
you were able to get into the mindset the movie prepares for you, you'll find these characters as believable and as real as they were meant to be. If you found yourself bored and not at all involved within the first 10 minutes, blame it on your lack of imagination.
and even better:
It's easy to be biased toward Charlize, and if I were capable of being biased toward anyone, it would be her, but I managed to control myself. The way I saw it was that the movie was fantastic and Charlize was phenomenal, but if anyone else had done it (as well as or better) and had that same "it" factor that Charlize has flowing out of every pore on her gorgeous face, I would have felt exactly the same about the film as I do right now. And that is true.
Proof that the ability for any schmo to publish their thoughts for all to see is not necessarily a good thing!
In my laziness, I didn't notice that the BBC link was actually in the article. But then apparantly, I am not the only one. Neither did the mods!
Heehee what a hoot!
BBC article
and this is over simplified so don't jump on me poker nuts
:)
Oy, me achin' poker nuts!
Sometimes a comma is a good thing. Sorry, couldn't resist
Whooooshhhhhh!
:(
The sound of a joke going over someone's head. So sad
Cynics are always right.
And sweeping generalizations are always wrong.
Is that the script is excellent and Bay is so clueless that he passed on a great possibility.
Just trying to remain positive...
and only an ideologue would suggest the artificial tripling of gas prices
I don't know this for certain, but I had thought that gas prices in the US were kept artificially low through the use of subsidies. Anybody out there know the details?
Care to wager on that? I will bet that I can use a "lossy" codec and you will not be able to distinguish the lossy encoding from the original CD in blind listening tests.
I am sure you could, too. Any lossy codec would be good if you use a high enough bit rate.
But take a lossy codec at 128 kbs (the bit rate described in this article) and then encode it into another lossy codec with a low bit rate. That is what I was referring to.
I understand that a lot of pop music undergoes compression. But that is in the mixing and mastering stage, and could be argued that it is part of the artistry that goes into making the music of a particular song. (I'll let others debate on the wisdom of using the words artistry and pop music in the same breath).
However this is much different than selling music in a lossy codec. Of course many audiofiles argue that the quantization on a CD is not good enough for hi-fidelty. But converting from one lossy codec to another is a much bigger hit in my opinion and even non-audiofiles can hear the distortion.
Maybe it's WAV files on a 512MB flash drive.
From the article...
"This 128 reusable drive contains 29 songs, including the band's 2004 "Barenaked for the Holidays" album, in MP3 format along with live tracks, in-concert spoken quips, album art, photos, videos and more."
But that is the third paragraph of a very long, three paragraph article. It is understandable you wouldn't want to spend so much time reading such a lenghty text.
Oops, I don't refuse to pay for lossless compression! I meant to say I refuse to pay for lossy compression.
Preview is a good thing!
The reason I don't buy from online services is I refuse to pay money for lossless codecs. If I am paying for music, I want to get all the bits, and then determine for myself which lossless codec I use to compress the song.
I would hate to see situations like this, where albums are only avialable in a lossy format, become the norm
In general I am amused by language that is ambiguous and can be read in multiple ways.
I was also intrigued by the notion of a thing that is not itself.
But you are correct, I probably do need to get out more.
No. The set I am describing does not contain anything that is not itself or the teaspoon on the corner of my desk. Therefore, the moon is not in the set; you are not in the set; the number 5 is not in the set. There is nothing in the set except itself and the teaspoon.
I see. Does that mean the set also does not contain things with a sense of humor?
As a Christian, I see more need to have an opinion on Intelligent Design than on a document standard from a company...
Then again I belive the above statements should also hold ture if you replace company with government or political party
I call shenanigans. Intelligent Design is ALL about playing politics and government and has little to do with reality.