Well, I have absolutely nothing to add to the Lasik conversation. I do have a semi-on-topic question, though: I wear glasses now, this is a fairly recent thing. They're not very strong as my vision's not that bad. I was just curious, what about contacts? A friend of mine mentioned contacts that you can wear for weeks at a time. Anybody wear those? Are contacts (in general) worth it considering my biggest complaint about glasses is they keep getting smudged?
"Since the loss estimates are always based on "potential" sales minus costs instead of actual sales minus costs, you probably are an "evil pirate" in the industry's eyes."
Gotta wonder what the 'potential sales' really are if somebody's willing to jump through the hoops to find, download, and install a game that could potentially have a trojan or something in it instead of simply going to buy it.
Frankly, I think legitimate demo downloads are the best anti-piracy measure. Sadly, it's all too often that the demo doesn't show up at the right time. Pity, I like knowing if a game will run on my computer.
"Its a common misbelief that having something change on a screen for a few frames is subliminal messaging. If you can actually see what the message is, it is NOT subliminal. Subliminal messaging is when the message they are trying to show you isn't noticed by your senses, but still makes it to the brain anyway."
I agree. However, the word "subliminal" + "Microsoft" = a bunch of people angrily trying to find out what it's about. Subliminal + Microsoft = EffectiveMarketing();.
Part of me thinks they did that just to get on Slashdot. I personally am amused at the concept of MS playing on Slashdot's hatred of them. Heh.
...with refurbished items that makes them shy away from them? I mean that in a general sense, of course. I don't have anything to add to this particular discussion, but I'm hoping this particular question brings up interesting points that the person asking this question will find interesting.
" Is there any harm in SETI? Perhaps if our resources were limitless, and the persuit of a project like SETI didn't potentially take away from resources for more worthwhile projects, then I might not be arguing that the harm is in fact there, and very, very real."
I don't quite agree with this logic. I mean, there's a matter of priorities. However, today, those priorities still seem to allow for the existence of Seti. (It'd be stupid to run it if we were fighting an army of Terminators, for example.)
The problem with what you're saying, at least in the case of taking it to an unusual extreme, is that the result is that we only look for stuff we know we can find. We simply cannot be that efficient at allocating the resources to only the right areas. Suppose in the tower example you provided that it failed, but radical new engineering enhancements were made that made buildings more earthquake proof? Who would expect that building such a seemingly dumb project would make Earthquakes more survivable? Nobody can predict that.
Resources are limited, they'll always be limited. Investments (even gambles) need to be made that new discoveries will come about. If we stick to making decisions based strictly on what we know, then I would fear the risk of exhaustion of our resources because too much time was spent on predictable outcomes.
Hope that makes sense, and I hope you can forgive the "taken to extremes" rebuttal.
"or maybe when we switch over to unencryptable-uninterceptable quantum cryptography for all communications...and cable tv for our tv signals...and wired phones. it is possible with current technology for us to use means of communication that are undetectable now."
I can see a massive move to it, but total extinction? 'Undetectable' isn't the end all be all goal of radio or any other form of communication. You wouldn't want 'undetectable' if you're sending out an SOS. The nice thing about radio is that it's easy to generate. I don't know how one would go about building a quantum transmitter on a desert island with only the wreckage of a plane for materials. On top of that, so long as RF is being produced in some form (such as machine interferrence like I mentioned earlier) there'll always be some need to have radio sensitive equipment. Heck, just thinking about RFID makes me think that technology's not going anywhere.
"random noise from machinery would likely appear the same as random noise from a star."
No, I don't think so. At least I wouldn't use the word 'likely'. RF noise generated by equipment has a pattern. I imagine an influence on that patern is the direct result of how AC works. Every 60th' of a second, something happens. Patterns in nature aren't so, pardon the term, mechanical.
*Sigh* we won't find any of this out until we meet somebody.
Maybe because radio emissions aren't necessarily a result of communication? Lots of machinery generates RF, that's why the FCC has to approve electronic stuff in the USA before it's released.
"Also assuming that all intelligent life evolves along a similar timeline, we can assume that these other planets will emit radio signals for only a brief period of time."
We can't assume anything, we haven't met anybody else. Besides, even if we invent sub-space inverse tachyon communicators, who's to say radio would ever die out? It'll always be useful for something.
I agree it's a long shot, but what's the harm in looking? Dismissing stuff is a lot easier than searching for what might not exist. Life would be more primitive here if the former happened routinely.
"And how many people buy PCs with Windows on them, and immediately format the disk(s) and install Linux?"
How many people that buy PC's even know that Linux is something that could replace Windows? Don't dismiss the number of Linux users out there that buy components instead of assembled PCs.
"and the cynical comment was to put a bad light on fans who think it's the right thing to download it early, because that's the only available copy."
Hmm yeah I see your point. I'm still bugged about that. I don't think people are thinking it's right, I think they're thinking "hey, i can finally get it." Yeah, maybe they're not in the right mind set, being a bit ignorant I suppose. Is it an excuse? Not really. But the problem with piracy on a large scale has little to do with people tyring to get something for nothing, it's about who provides the best service.
Sorry to bug ya about it. Just venting a bit in between long file saves here.;)
"Ahhh. Plus by downloading from iTunes people can be sure it's the real thing, complete, and of high quality."
And, pretty quickly, they could preview it.
I agree, it is shrewd on their part, and I think it's a good move for everybody. My only nitpick is I think they should just release it on iTunes anyway, but I imagine they won't since they likely have a higher profit margin on the physical CDs. Eh, maybe one day. I mean, how long will it be before a significant portion of the music buying population has some form of high-capacity music player?
"I don't understand the threatening nature of the band's proposal to immediately make the album available on iTunes and later in stores when it is finished. Can someone explain ?"
I believe that was Slashdot's idea of sarcasm. Judging from the comments I've skimmed so far, U2 is not well liked here.
"maybe they're scared that p2p will allow people to "try before you buy", and just want people to be able to pay for it before they've heard it,"
Heh. Ever notice that you can't return an album you don't like? I'm of the belief that one of the big scares internet music piracy has put into the industry is their "Open your mouth and close your eyes" business model is in serious danger. It would explain why 'innovative' is not a term used to describe the music industry very often.
"So what if they release it on iTunes? What does it matter? Besides, it'll end up in P2P regardless."
I doubt it's to stop it arriving on P2P, afterall they claim to be waiting until they see it there. The 'so what' is that people will be given the chance to just buy the music out right instead of simply taking it.
Frankly, it could work. A.) They're likely to get money they would not have made otherwise. B.) One of the best ways to shy people away from P2P for illegit music downloads is to not create a gap from illegal availability to the release of the content. I prefer their attitude to "our fans our thieves!" P2P may be free, but iTunes is a considerably better service. Encourage people to go there first and they're not so likely to just go download the music.
" How about exercising the slightest bit of self-restraint and waiting another 2 weeks. Oh I forgot, there is nothing we shouldn't have for free and damnit we deserve it right? I feel sorry for you."
If the majority of people really felt the way you have caricaturized them, then the content industry would not be thriving. I feel sorry for you for feeling so cynical about how people really are. Gloomy.
"If it's available for free on P2P networks, we'll make it available for people to buy online? Just don't get that..."
What's not to get? There's demand for their album, right? But there's no supply. When people want something, but they can't get it legitimately, some will go towards the less-than-legit form of acuisition. But, if they supply it, they'll get sales because that demand is definitely there. Frankly, if I were a fan of U2, I'd just go the iTunes route. I'd get it quicker, plus guaranteed quality. I imagine others would feel the same way. Let iTunes be the first stop shop and 'free music' isn't so interesting.
Every time there's a story about a vulnerability in something Microsoft related, there's a ton of modded up comments to the tune of "people should use Linux and related stuff to be more secure." But if security's such a BFD, why isn't BSD more popular around here?
"I killed mine a couple of years ago. I have noticed effects on my social life."
Kinda funny, iddn't it? Watching too much TV == bad, a lot of the content is pretty insulting to the intelligence. Not watching TV == bad, a few things are pretty darned good, but they're being missed.
Slashdot Mirror
"I, for one, welcome our new Nascar Martian Overloads." ... getting picked off by sand people on the side of the track...
"I think I'd rather steal food from natives than eat US Amry-supplied kidney damaging "food"
I'd rather eat whatever isn't lilikely to be poisoned.
Well, I have absolutely nothing to add to the Lasik conversation. I do have a semi-on-topic question, though: I wear glasses now, this is a fairly recent thing. They're not very strong as my vision's not that bad. I was just curious, what about contacts? A friend of mine mentioned contacts that you can wear for weeks at a time. Anybody wear those? Are contacts (in general) worth it considering my biggest complaint about glasses is they keep getting smudged?
"Since the loss estimates are always based on "potential" sales minus costs instead of actual sales minus costs, you probably are an "evil pirate" in the industry's eyes."
Gotta wonder what the 'potential sales' really are if somebody's willing to jump through the hoops to find, download, and install a game that could potentially have a trojan or something in it instead of simply going to buy it.
Frankly, I think legitimate demo downloads are the best anti-piracy measure. Sadly, it's all too often that the demo doesn't show up at the right time. Pity, I like knowing if a game will run on my computer.
"Its a common misbelief that having something change on a screen for a few frames is subliminal messaging. If you can actually see what the message is, it is NOT subliminal. Subliminal messaging is when the message they are trying to show you isn't noticed by your senses, but still makes it to the brain anyway."
I agree. However, the word "subliminal" + "Microsoft" = a bunch of people angrily trying to find out what it's about. Subliminal + Microsoft = EffectiveMarketing();.
Part of me thinks they did that just to get on Slashdot. I personally am amused at the concept of MS playing on Slashdot's hatred of them. Heh.
...with refurbished items that makes them shy away from them? I mean that in a general sense, of course. I don't have anything to add to this particular discussion, but I'm hoping this particular question brings up interesting points that the person asking this question will find interesting.
" Is there any harm in SETI? Perhaps if our resources were limitless, and the persuit of a project like SETI didn't potentially take away from resources for more worthwhile projects, then I might not be arguing that the harm is in fact there, and very, very real."
I don't quite agree with this logic. I mean, there's a matter of priorities. However, today, those priorities still seem to allow for the existence of Seti. (It'd be stupid to run it if we were fighting an army of Terminators, for example.)
The problem with what you're saying, at least in the case of taking it to an unusual extreme, is that the result is that we only look for stuff we know we can find. We simply cannot be that efficient at allocating the resources to only the right areas. Suppose in the tower example you provided that it failed, but radical new engineering enhancements were made that made buildings more earthquake proof? Who would expect that building such a seemingly dumb project would make Earthquakes more survivable? Nobody can predict that.
Resources are limited, they'll always be limited. Investments (even gambles) need to be made that new discoveries will come about. If we stick to making decisions based strictly on what we know, then I would fear the risk of exhaustion of our resources because too much time was spent on predictable outcomes.
Hope that makes sense, and I hope you can forgive the "taken to extremes" rebuttal.
"Great - so our historic first contact with an alien civilization might just happen because we notice that their garbage compactor is a bit noisy."
Playing a game of hide and seek, I was once caught because the dude heard me fart.
I wish I could find some way to relate this to the topic, but all I can say is your comment reminded me of that memory.
"or maybe when we switch over to unencryptable-uninterceptable quantum cryptography for all communications...and cable tv for our tv signals...and wired phones. it is possible with current technology for us to use means of communication that are undetectable now."
I can see a massive move to it, but total extinction? 'Undetectable' isn't the end all be all goal of radio or any other form of communication. You wouldn't want 'undetectable' if you're sending out an SOS. The nice thing about radio is that it's easy to generate. I don't know how one would go about building a quantum transmitter on a desert island with only the wreckage of a plane for materials. On top of that, so long as RF is being produced in some form (such as machine interferrence like I mentioned earlier) there'll always be some need to have radio sensitive equipment. Heck, just thinking about RFID makes me think that technology's not going anywhere.
"random noise from machinery would likely appear the same as random noise from a star."
No, I don't think so. At least I wouldn't use the word 'likely'. RF noise generated by equipment has a pattern. I imagine an influence on that patern is the direct result of how AC works. Every 60th' of a second, something happens. Patterns in nature aren't so, pardon the term, mechanical.
*Sigh* we won't find any of this out until we meet somebody.
"How can SETI possibly work?"
Maybe because radio emissions aren't necessarily a result of communication? Lots of machinery generates RF, that's why the FCC has to approve electronic stuff in the USA before it's released.
"Also assuming that all intelligent life evolves along a similar timeline, we can assume that these other planets will emit radio signals for only a brief period of time."
We can't assume anything, we haven't met anybody else. Besides, even if we invent sub-space inverse tachyon communicators, who's to say radio would ever die out? It'll always be useful for something.
I agree it's a long shot, but what's the harm in looking? Dismissing stuff is a lot easier than searching for what might not exist. Life would be more primitive here if the former happened routinely.
"And I predict that I'll get laid by 2020...."
So are we all going to run a screen saver to search for a woman that'd be willing to do that with you so soon?
"but the Internet is too big and has too many choices."
And you landed on Slashdot? Heh. Hope you're a Kerry man.
"And how many people buy PCs with Windows on them, and immediately format the disk(s) and install Linux?"
How many people that buy PC's even know that Linux is something that could replace Windows? Don't dismiss the number of Linux users out there that buy components instead of assembled PCs.
"and the cynical comment was to put a bad light on fans who think it's the right thing to download it early, because that's the only available copy."
;)
Hmm yeah I see your point. I'm still bugged about that. I don't think people are thinking it's right, I think they're thinking "hey, i can finally get it." Yeah, maybe they're not in the right mind set, being a bit ignorant I suppose. Is it an excuse? Not really. But the problem with piracy on a large scale has little to do with people tyring to get something for nothing, it's about who provides the best service.
Sorry to bug ya about it. Just venting a bit in between long file saves here.
"Ahhh. Plus by downloading from iTunes people can be sure it's the real thing, complete, and of high quality."
And, pretty quickly, they could preview it.
I agree, it is shrewd on their part, and I think it's a good move for everybody. My only nitpick is I think they should just release it on iTunes anyway, but I imagine they won't since they likely have a higher profit margin on the physical CDs. Eh, maybe one day. I mean, how long will it be before a significant portion of the music buying population has some form of high-capacity music player?
"Linux is totally appropriate for a secure desktop system."
Well I don't know how to write this so it doesn't sound trollish. For that, I apologize in advance.
Is what you're saying that a little less security is okay if it's more usable? If so, why isn't Windows given a little more credit?
"I don't understand the threatening nature of the band's proposal to immediately make the album available on iTunes and later in stores when it is finished. Can someone explain ?"
I believe that was Slashdot's idea of sarcasm. Judging from the comments I've skimmed so far, U2 is not well liked here.
"maybe they're scared that p2p will allow people to "try before you buy", and just want people to be able to pay for it before they've heard it,"
Heh. Ever notice that you can't return an album you don't like? I'm of the belief that one of the big scares internet music piracy has put into the industry is their "Open your mouth and close your eyes" business model is in serious danger. It would explain why 'innovative' is not a term used to describe the music industry very often.
"So what if they release it on iTunes? What does it matter? Besides, it'll end up in P2P regardless."
I doubt it's to stop it arriving on P2P, afterall they claim to be waiting until they see it there. The 'so what' is that people will be given the chance to just buy the music out right instead of simply taking it.
Frankly, it could work. A.) They're likely to get money they would not have made otherwise. B.) One of the best ways to shy people away from P2P for illegit music downloads is to not create a gap from illegal availability to the release of the content. I prefer their attitude to "our fans our thieves!" P2P may be free, but iTunes is a considerably better service. Encourage people to go there first and they're not so likely to just go download the music.
" How about exercising the slightest bit of self-restraint and waiting another 2 weeks. Oh I forgot, there is nothing we shouldn't have for free and damnit we deserve it right? I feel sorry for you."
If the majority of people really felt the way you have caricaturized them, then the content industry would not be thriving. I feel sorry for you for feeling so cynical about how people really are. Gloomy.
"If it's available for free on P2P networks, we'll make it available for people to buy online? Just don't get that..."
What's not to get? There's demand for their album, right? But there's no supply. When people want something, but they can't get it legitimately, some will go towards the less-than-legit form of acuisition. But, if they supply it, they'll get sales because that demand is definitely there. Frankly, if I were a fan of U2, I'd just go the iTunes route. I'd get it quicker, plus guaranteed quality. I imagine others would feel the same way. Let iTunes be the first stop shop and 'free music' isn't so interesting.
Every time there's a story about a vulnerability in something Microsoft related, there's a ton of modded up comments to the tune of "people should use Linux and related stuff to be more secure." But if security's such a BFD, why isn't BSD more popular around here?
"I killed mine a couple of years ago. I have noticed effects on my social life."
Kinda funny, iddn't it? Watching too much TV == bad, a lot of the content is pretty insulting to the intelligence. Not watching TV == bad, a few things are pretty darned good, but they're being missed.
"There is an american flag on the moon. Splendid."
Yeah, you'd think that the Americans that were on the moon would have put the Russian flag up in the name of diplomacy.
"That's the most important question... would my p3-450 with a voodoo2 break 1 fps or not?"
.PPT port of Doom 3.
Only if you download the