If it were possible to moderate downwards for general arrogant assholeness I would.
So: tell me how I was wrong?
I understand what scientific Theory means. What I meant, and it was obviously too abstract for you, was that the ID proponents use the word "Theory" (as in HALF-ASS GUESS) even though it really doesn't have anything to do with a scientific theory - which by the time it becomes a theory isn't much of a "theory" at all.
Sounds like an extremely frustrating story to read.
Again, it's not for me, and it's not for a lot of people. That doesn't make your beloved achewood any less meaningful to YOU, so don't bother trying to convince anyone that it's some amazing art that everyone should love.
Hey, let's not take this too far now. First of all it's NPR, and second of all, NPR is great radio. They have a lot of material and guests that you just don't get anywhere else. It's fun to listen to and you learn things.
So you're telling him that this coming IS for him?
I'd say that's just as dismissing as you accuse him to be. You are making assumptions that anyone that doesn't like this comic MUST have not read enough of them! That they MUST be humorless!
Hey, whatever floats your boat, man. And I'm sure if I looked at ALL of them, I might find something funny. ... But after looking through over 30 of them, I gave up.
I don't believe Barak Obama is a RACIST - although he has been associated with prominent black leaders in poorer communities that spread anti-white propaganda.
Sure, I'm sure Barak has had to deal with some pretty lame shit, growing up as a fairly poor black man. You can't blame someone for having associations with certain people when you come from that background.
I have acquaintances that are drug dealers, and others that have done prison time. I also have friends that hold local office and are leaders in their communities. Does this make me a drug dealer too? Or does it make me a normal human being?
I guess you believe in "Guilt by association." Why are standards so high for the president that they can't have ANY marks on their past? I'd rather have someone leading the country that has experienced the good as well as the bad.
I'm no Obamaholic, but I believe in giving everyone their fair shot. Go back to the hole you came from, or don't post anonymous, you fucking coward (I mean, you don't even have the balls to post something on the Internet under your Slashdot handle? Weak dude.)
That much seems pretty obvious to me. I cannot imagine someone TRULY believing in a supreme being.. It makes people feel better about themselves, and is also an effective means of controlling the population.
No way. See, the whole problem is that the whackos trying to push ID say "Well, we weren't THERE so you can't PROVE any of this!"
Science that proves evolution is considered Theory for this very reason. A scientific mind MUST concede that point. Obviously, there's so much evidence behind evolution, so much correlation between other sciences; but we cannot actually demonstrate evolution in a lab environment. So, it will remain the "Evolutionary Theory."
So, that's where the ID proponents weasel their way in. They say "Well, Intelligent Design is a Theory too!!" It works against the weaker mind and the impressionable mind; kids in school. It must not be given the time of day in any school.
It would be like explaining the "Theory" of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://www.venganza.org/)
Well, you can call me a troll but it was just a stupid attempt at a joke, too.
The good thing about the top two candidates this time around is that neither of them are fanatic about their religion and I don't believe they'd try to push their religions into policy. Unfortunately, McCain picked a nutjob, so it might still happen if he is elected. Holy fuck he better not get elected.
Well, I'm a Catholic (although not a practicing one) and it was never, ever taught in Church or any Church extra-curricular activities that the earth is only 5,000 years old. This is something that is only believed by the crazy Evangelical Christians that belong to "fringe" churches; not the larger more accepting churches. Unfortunately, their numbers are growing.. and fast. It's frightening.
I agree that the good thing about this country is that you can believe anything you want - but the Evangelicals always try to take it too far and push, push, PUSH their way into politics, policy, and law.
CD's weren't cheap for quite a while. I got a SCSI CD-Writer after they were available for two years and it still cost me $500. And, the media was no less than $14 a pop.
Writable DVD's only came down in the last three years.
BDRE discs (25GB/Single Layer) are still about $15 a pop but they've come down a bunch already.
One of the differences is that when DVD Writables came on the scene, 4.5GB was still quite a bit of data, but HD Capacity has skyrocketed in recent years so even a dual-layer BDRE at 50GB just can't compare to a $60 external 500GB USB drive.
The uses for disc media have changed; mostly it's for movie distribution and possibly data archiving. Backups and such are still quite easily in the realm of hard drives and tapes.
Yea, I hear that argument all the time from people posting on/. or Digg. And you're right - the quality of the movie doesn't improve with the quality of the video or audio.
But it makes it a hell of a lot more fun to watch.
I mean, sure, you could watch all your movies in a 320x240 resolution flash video web window. But personally, I'd rather watch it in 1920x1080 on a 60" flat panel with 7.1 uncompressed surround sound.
Discs are a lot less expensive to produce than tapes. (Which is why it always bothered me that CD's never ended up being cheaper than cassettes.)
There were problems with the other formats you described, however; problems that BluRay doesn't have.
- Laserdiscs were the size of Vinyl LP's and had conflicting standards when it came to sound formats. Only a very limited number of titles were ever released on Laserdisc and the prices of both the media (movies) nor the players ever came down below "holy shit."
- Minidisc was Sony-only until the end - they finally let others make MD players and recorders but by then Minidisc just didn't matter anymore.
BlueRay offers not only much better quality video and audio (Which Laserdisc nor Minidisc really provided in any meaningful way) but the players are already becoming affordable to almost anyone, there's already a pretty big library of movies available, and new movies are released on both DVD and BD at the same time.
BD Might not have the ultra-fast takeover speed that these big companies wanted, but the format is well on the way. Not to mention, BD is already becoming more common (and pretty cheap!) as the optical drive on PC's.
I don't know about *absolutely hated* rewinding tapes. I never really found it to be much of a problem. When the movie is done, hit stop, and then hit rewind.
So, you've basically explained the EXACT SAME scenario in which BD will eventually replaced DVD: After many years of coexistance, BD will eventually become cheaper (or the same price) as DVD and therefore replace it. It has many of the same characteristics: Better quality video, much better quality sound.
It should be noted, however, that VHS is long from being dead. You still find many people using VHS to record and share TV shows.
I find it very interesting that so many so-called "tech savvy" people try to tell everyone that the only people that care about better video and sound are very few and they're all techies.
If that were truly the case, nothing would be High Definition. And in case you haven't noticed: Nearly all prime time TV, many daytime TV shows, and almost all movie channels are now HD. Not to mention that even frigging PBS is HD now.
Actually, Sharp has been selling a 46" 1080p model for the last four years. There's also a lot of lesser known names on the LCD market now, even in the big box stores, selling 40"+ screens and they're almost all 1080.
Besides, it doesn't matter between 1080i and 1080p for movies or video games. It only matters with a computer, and even then it won't look bad at 1080i.
You can't count the last 5 years as linear. Five years ago, you still found plenty of SDTV's available. Now, walk into a Best Buy. You might find one CRT, and you might find a few small "kitchen" LCD screens SD. Everything else is HD.
In 2008 people will buy more HDTV's than in 2007 and 2006 combined.
The "most people" argument just doesn't stick.
You then say "Most people even today, are NOT buying 1080p..."
And I say you're just being an ass. Most TV's now are 1080i/p displays. Sure, some aren't. But if that's what is being sold the most - then MOST PEOPLE are buying 1080 sets.
Yes, DVD has been broken for years but it remained unbroken for a long time before that. I took four years before DeCSS hit the scene, and another two years after that before turn-key DVD Copy apps were available.
In contrast, BluRay was out for less than two years and you can already copy them. Sure, it's not perfect yet, it will be soon.
So - you tell me what encryption was actually better.
The difference is, if you don't have the room for a 52" TV then you're more than likely to be sitting closer to it, and thus will see more detail. I think people that buy small TV's (a 32" widescreen aint that big - it's about the same as a 27" 4:3 TV in height) sit too far from them.
A 52" TV is about the same height as a 40" SDTV.
I agree though - if someone says they can't tell the difference, they aren't being truthful. Even my mom sees a big difference and she wears a pretty thick prescription and doesn't care about picture (not really.)
Yea, I feel the same way. Nothing good has been showing up on the shelves!
It's not the format's fault, but they (studios) COULD be working on releasing some more older movies, re-digitized into HD.
I don't have a very big movie collection (besides the 200 or so DivX/AC3 encodes of my friends' collection that I share on my media server for my PS3) because I never thought that DVD was really anything special. Sure, random access, chapters, extras. Neat. But what I really waited for was HD, and now that it's here, I want to see some of the old movies I never got to see in the theater in high quality, high definition.
Slashdot Mirror
If it were possible to moderate downwards for general arrogant assholeness I would.
So: tell me how I was wrong?
I understand what scientific Theory means. What I meant, and it was obviously too abstract for you, was that the ID proponents use the word "Theory" (as in HALF-ASS GUESS) even though it really doesn't have anything to do with a scientific theory - which by the time it becomes a theory isn't much of a "theory" at all.
Sounds like an extremely frustrating story to read.
Again, it's not for me, and it's not for a lot of people. That doesn't make your beloved achewood any less meaningful to YOU, so don't bother trying to convince anyone that it's some amazing art that everyone should love.
Hey, let's not take this too far now. First of all it's NPR, and second of all, NPR is great radio. They have a lot of material and guests that you just don't get anywhere else. It's fun to listen to and you learn things.
NPR is good. Achewood is not.
He's very wrong that it's not for him?
So you're telling him that this coming IS for him?
I'd say that's just as dismissing as you accuse him to be. You are making assumptions that anyone that doesn't like this comic MUST have not read enough of them! That they MUST be humorless!
You sound kinda like a Trekkie, I'm sorry to say.
hehe I guess one of their five fans had some mod points.
Ohh, we "get it." Just because a story might be all character-driven and all that bullshit doesn't mean we have to like it.
But come on.. "No WONDER there's so many hotels!!!" Ohh give me a break - it's not even a LITTLE BIT funny. It's predictable and stupid.
I never really found XKCD to be particularly good either. But, you can at least find SOME good stuff.
Hey, whatever floats your boat, man. And I'm sure if I looked at ALL of them, I might find something funny. . .. But after looking through over 30 of them, I gave up.
It's definitely not for me.
Why do we have to prove that there's "funnier" comics out there to say that this one is NOT funny?
I just read through about 30 of the ones in the archive and I didn't even crack a smile once.
It wasn't even a LITTLE funny.
I don't understand what point you're trying to make here.
Why post anonymous?
I don't believe Barak Obama is a RACIST - although he has been associated with prominent black leaders in poorer communities that spread anti-white propaganda.
Sure, I'm sure Barak has had to deal with some pretty lame shit, growing up as a fairly poor black man. You can't blame someone for having associations with certain people when you come from that background.
I have acquaintances that are drug dealers, and others that have done prison time. I also have friends that hold local office and are leaders in their communities. Does this make me a drug dealer too? Or does it make me a normal human being?
I guess you believe in "Guilt by association." Why are standards so high for the president that they can't have ANY marks on their past? I'd rather have someone leading the country that has experienced the good as well as the bad.
I'm no Obamaholic, but I believe in giving everyone their fair shot. Go back to the hole you came from, or don't post anonymous, you fucking coward (I mean, you don't even have the balls to post something on the Internet under your Slashdot handle? Weak dude.)
That much seems pretty obvious to me. I cannot imagine someone TRULY believing in a supreme being.. It makes people feel better about themselves, and is also an effective means of controlling the population.
No way. See, the whole problem is that the whackos trying to push ID say "Well, we weren't THERE so you can't PROVE any of this!"
Science that proves evolution is considered Theory for this very reason. A scientific mind MUST concede that point. Obviously, there's so much evidence behind evolution, so much correlation between other sciences; but we cannot actually demonstrate evolution in a lab environment. So, it will remain the "Evolutionary Theory."
So, that's where the ID proponents weasel their way in. They say "Well, Intelligent Design is a Theory too!!" It works against the weaker mind and the impressionable mind; kids in school. It must not be given the time of day in any school.
It would be like explaining the "Theory" of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://www.venganza.org/)
No. Intelligent Design cannot be taught in a scientific manner, unless it is to say "There was no Intelligent Design."
The whole "teach the controversy" is an attempt to trick people into teaching ID, and is a means of validating it.
Well, you can call me a troll but it was just a stupid attempt at a joke, too.
The good thing about the top two candidates this time around is that neither of them are fanatic about their religion and I don't believe they'd try to push their religions into policy. Unfortunately, McCain picked a nutjob, so it might still happen if he is elected. Holy fuck he better not get elected.
Well, I'm a Catholic (although not a practicing one) and it was never, ever taught in Church or any Church extra-curricular activities that the earth is only 5,000 years old. This is something that is only believed by the crazy Evangelical Christians that belong to "fringe" churches; not the larger more accepting churches. Unfortunately, their numbers are growing.. and fast. It's frightening.
I agree that the good thing about this country is that you can believe anything you want - but the Evangelicals always try to take it too far and push, push, PUSH their way into politics, policy, and law.
According to Sarah Palin, these rocks can only be 5,000 years old.
Just to think, such wisdom could very well have her hand on the Nukes.
CD's weren't cheap for quite a while. I got a SCSI CD-Writer after they were available for two years and it still cost me $500. And, the media was no less than $14 a pop.
Writable DVD's only came down in the last three years.
BDRE discs (25GB/Single Layer) are still about $15 a pop but they've come down a bunch already.
One of the differences is that when DVD Writables came on the scene, 4.5GB was still quite a bit of data, but HD Capacity has skyrocketed in recent years so even a dual-layer BDRE at 50GB just can't compare to a $60 external 500GB USB drive.
The uses for disc media have changed; mostly it's for movie distribution and possibly data archiving. Backups and such are still quite easily in the realm of hard drives and tapes.
Yea, I hear that argument all the time from people posting on /. or Digg. And you're right - the quality of the movie doesn't improve with the quality of the video or audio.
But it makes it a hell of a lot more fun to watch.
I mean, sure, you could watch all your movies in a 320x240 resolution flash video web window. But personally, I'd rather watch it in 1920x1080 on a 60" flat panel with 7.1 uncompressed surround sound.
Sorry if that makes me strange.
You're right in pretty much every way here.
Discs are a lot less expensive to produce than tapes. (Which is why it always bothered me that CD's never ended up being cheaper than cassettes.)
There were problems with the other formats you described, however; problems that BluRay doesn't have.
- Laserdiscs were the size of Vinyl LP's and had conflicting standards when it came to sound formats. Only a very limited number of titles were ever released on Laserdisc and the prices of both the media (movies) nor the players ever came down below "holy shit."
- Minidisc was Sony-only until the end - they finally let others make MD players and recorders but by then Minidisc just didn't matter anymore.
BlueRay offers not only much better quality video and audio (Which Laserdisc nor Minidisc really provided in any meaningful way) but the players are already becoming affordable to almost anyone, there's already a pretty big library of movies available, and new movies are released on both DVD and BD at the same time.
BD Might not have the ultra-fast takeover speed that these big companies wanted, but the format is well on the way. Not to mention, BD is already becoming more common (and pretty cheap!) as the optical drive on PC's.
I don't know about *absolutely hated* rewinding tapes. I never really found it to be much of a problem. When the movie is done, hit stop, and then hit rewind.
So, you've basically explained the EXACT SAME scenario in which BD will eventually replaced DVD: After many years of coexistance, BD will eventually become cheaper (or the same price) as DVD and therefore replace it. It has many of the same characteristics: Better quality video, much better quality sound.
It should be noted, however, that VHS is long from being dead. You still find many people using VHS to record and share TV shows.
I find it very interesting that so many so-called "tech savvy" people try to tell everyone that the only people that care about better video and sound are very few and they're all techies.
If that were truly the case, nothing would be High Definition. And in case you haven't noticed: Nearly all prime time TV, many daytime TV shows, and almost all movie channels are now HD. Not to mention that even frigging PBS is HD now.
Actually, Sharp has been selling a 46" 1080p model for the last four years. There's also a lot of lesser known names on the LCD market now, even in the big box stores, selling 40"+ screens and they're almost all 1080.
Besides, it doesn't matter between 1080i and 1080p for movies or video games. It only matters with a computer, and even then it won't look bad at 1080i.
You can't count the last 5 years as linear. Five years ago, you still found plenty of SDTV's available. Now, walk into a Best Buy. You might find one CRT, and you might find a few small "kitchen" LCD screens SD. Everything else is HD.
In 2008 people will buy more HDTV's than in 2007 and 2006 combined.
The "most people" argument just doesn't stick.
You then say "Most people even today, are NOT buying 1080p..."
And I say you're just being an ass. Most TV's now are 1080i/p displays. Sure, some aren't. But if that's what is being sold the most - then MOST PEOPLE are buying 1080 sets.
Yes, DVD has been broken for years but it remained unbroken for a long time before that. I took four years before DeCSS hit the scene, and another two years after that before turn-key DVD Copy apps were available.
In contrast, BluRay was out for less than two years and you can already copy them. Sure, it's not perfect yet, it will be soon.
So - you tell me what encryption was actually better.
The difference is, if you don't have the room for a 52" TV then you're more than likely to be sitting closer to it, and thus will see more detail. I think people that buy small TV's (a 32" widescreen aint that big - it's about the same as a 27" 4:3 TV in height) sit too far from them.
A 52" TV is about the same height as a 40" SDTV.
I agree though - if someone says they can't tell the difference, they aren't being truthful. Even my mom sees a big difference and she wears a pretty thick prescription and doesn't care about picture (not really.)
Yea, I feel the same way. Nothing good has been showing up on the shelves!
It's not the format's fault, but they (studios) COULD be working on releasing some more older movies, re-digitized into HD.
I don't have a very big movie collection (besides the 200 or so DivX/AC3 encodes of my friends' collection that I share on my media server for my PS3) because I never thought that DVD was really anything special. Sure, random access, chapters, extras. Neat. But what I really waited for was HD, and now that it's here, I want to see some of the old movies I never got to see in the theater in high quality, high definition.