I didn't notice anything past those first few episodes, and that was how long ago? Unlike the other BG whiners, who complain about "all the spiritual crap" but kept watching anyway, I actually put my foot down and walked away. Sure, I feel like I missed out on something, but what I feel I missed is precisely what wasn't offered: real science fiction.
I have an iPAQ Pocket PC that is perfectly capable of acting as a true universal remote (of the sort represented by the Logitech Harmony series), and software to enable that on pretty much any ARM-powered device has existed for years now. Of course it can't replace RF remotes, but how many of those are there?
I wonder if infrared will continue to be the remote transmission medium of choice, though.
Not that there was ever really anything more than a facade of impartiality at Slashdot, but thanks a bunch for tossing even that facade in the dumpster.
This twit even writes about himself in the third person in an attempt to disguise his self-promotion; disgusting.
How any self-respecting atheist can tolerate the blatant propaganda and/or pandering to the majority ("we don't dare piss off the Christians and lose viewer share") that was evident in this series from the outset, and watch it for years in spite of it, is a mystery bigger than any in the plot of this show. I stopped watching it after the first few episodes, when it became OBVIOUS where it was ultimately headed; I didn't need to wait years to know that it would end with precisely the justifications that it did in the finale. I had issues with the original series for the same reason, even though I was still just a kid.
I can't say with any certainty whether there was any real propagandistic intent, but it was obviously pandering to a certain religious majority. People have been praising it for the "risks" the show took with the plot, but that's basically bullshit: the biggest risk the show could have possibly taken would have been to ignore the reactions of that religious majority and present some true science fiction. The show's writers and producers took the cowardly route, though, and all viewers got was fantasy or mere fiction instead. The fact that this has been true of so much other so-called "science fiction" is not a defense of the "science" in this series. The show achieved ratings, but not because it was science fiction.
Obama: "Gotta protect Big Business, because Big Business IS the economy! If Big Business can't make tons of money off the backs of the clueless, the economy would cease to exist, the world as we (my buddies and I) know it would come to an end, the universe would implode, and the Rapture will begin!"
Ah... so then in practical use as "muscles" this material would have to be attached MUCH closer to the joint than would a human muscle, and perhaps the joints would have to sized disproportionately; attaching it closer to the joint effectively amplifies the effect of its more limited degree of elasticity. I think.
What wasn't apparent to me is whether these "muscles" are exerting force along the axis of their attachment points; are they pulling against the "bones" to which they're attached as they expand laterally, perpendicular to the axis of attachment?
If they're not, I don't see how these structures can be described as muscles.
I've been aware of this effect for two decades, and it's all about an absence of feedback from car to driver. Think about the feedback that you get as a "driver" when you ride a bicycle: the faster you want to move, the harder you have to work physically and the greater the feedback you get from both the bicycle and your own muscles.
That is precisely what is missing in modern cars. Not only is there no physical work involved - we now even have power steering, power windows, power everything - but the engine is largely silent at all speeds, the tires don't hum, the shocks are quiet; the interior is like a virtual womb.
The last vehicle I drove, for 14 years, was a 1989 Mercury Tracer (which had the same engine as a Mazda 323). I miss that little vehicle for the degree of feedback that it gave me as the driver: the engine actually made noise and vibration that increased as I drive faster, etc. Even though I still don't drive a "luxury car" by any means, I don't get that so much since then. Fortunately I still have what you might call muscle memory of the Tracer.
If we REALLY want to make cars safer, AND teach people to use fuel more wisely, then vehicles should be made much more an extension of our physical bodies; there should be some tangible or physical consequence and feedback from driving faster or driving recklessly.
To hell with trying to placate people by trying to describe myself as a "bright" or "humanist" or whatever or whatever term is politically correct this month. If people are too stupid to use an objective definition of a word rather than some emotionally-charged mental imagery, then they're not worth the effort on my part. NBC/Syfy can coddle them if it wants, since clearly it seems to want to part those fools from their money.
I wasn't "siding" with Blockbuster. I have no more emotional attachment to Blockbuster than I do the OP. You're making the mistake of assuming that I must have such an attachment to one or the other. Just because I thought the OP was disproportionate doesn't mean that I favor Blockbuster in any way; in fact I don't. I've set foot in a Blockbuster store exactly ONCE, and that small number was not coincidental.
You've just committed a logical fallacy; welcome to Slashdot!
It might be worth writing home about, if this were behavior unexpected of a business like Blockbuster. It's not unexpected. That's why they have a disclaimer disavowing any responsibility for prior notification of changes to policy or service. The very existence of that disclaimer demonstrates the degree of regard Blockbuster has for the other parties in its contracts; anyone who then acts shocked when they get quietly reamed from behind by Blockbuster is demonstrating their own poor comprehension of the agreement they signed. If you don't like their ability to modify the terms at their whim, then don't sign the damned thing in the first place. Do you have any idea how routine this practice really is? Credit card companies, banks, lenders, cable companies, telecoms, and virtually every other large corporation that offers a service have similar disclaimers in their contracts, and they all routinely manipulate the terms of those contracts to their benefit. The disclaimers certainly aren't present for your benefit.
The real news would be a service corporation that doesn't have such a disclaimer.
Why did this submission from an oh-the-world-owes-me-a-livin' whiner make it to the front page? The change in policy could be argued as perfectly reasonable - assuming it's even really a change in policy - whether this person happens to approve or not. Clearly he feels some sense of entitlement; whether he had a right to feel entitled is another matter. In any case he's doing the right thing by voting with his dollar, but why is this such a blockbuster that he has to shout about it?
Slashdot Mirror
To use lawyer-speak, asked and answered already:
I didn't notice anything past those first few episodes, and that was how long ago? Unlike the other BG whiners, who complain about "all the spiritual crap" but kept watching anyway, I actually put my foot down and walked away. Sure, I feel like I missed out on something, but what I feel I missed is precisely what wasn't offered: real science fiction.
I have an iPAQ Pocket PC that is perfectly capable of acting as a true universal remote (of the sort represented by the Logitech Harmony series), and software to enable that on pretty much any ARM-powered device has existed for years now. Of course it can't replace RF remotes, but how many of those are there?
I wonder if infrared will continue to be the remote transmission medium of choice, though.
Not that there was ever really anything more than a facade of impartiality at Slashdot, but thanks a bunch for tossing even that facade in the dumpster.
This twit even writes about himself in the third person in an attempt to disguise his self-promotion; disgusting.
How any self-respecting atheist can tolerate the blatant propaganda and/or pandering to the majority ("we don't dare piss off the Christians and lose viewer share") that was evident in this series from the outset, and watch it for years in spite of it, is a mystery bigger than any in the plot of this show. I stopped watching it after the first few episodes, when it became OBVIOUS where it was ultimately headed; I didn't need to wait years to know that it would end with precisely the justifications that it did in the finale. I had issues with the original series for the same reason, even though I was still just a kid.
I can't say with any certainty whether there was any real propagandistic intent, but it was obviously pandering to a certain religious majority. People have been praising it for the "risks" the show took with the plot, but that's basically bullshit: the biggest risk the show could have possibly taken would have been to ignore the reactions of that religious majority and present some true science fiction. The show's writers and producers took the cowardly route, though, and all viewers got was fantasy or mere fiction instead. The fact that this has been true of so much other so-called "science fiction" is not a defense of the "science" in this series. The show achieved ratings, but not because it was science fiction.
Obama: "Gotta protect Big Business, because Big Business IS the economy! If Big Business can't make tons of money off the backs of the clueless, the economy would cease to exist, the world as we (my buddies and I) know it would come to an end, the universe would implode, and the Rapture will begin!"
Ah... so then in practical use as "muscles" this material would have to be attached MUCH closer to the joint than would a human muscle, and perhaps the joints would have to sized disproportionately; attaching it closer to the joint effectively amplifies the effect of its more limited degree of elasticity. I think.
What wasn't apparent to me is whether these "muscles" are exerting force along the axis of their attachment points; are they pulling against the "bones" to which they're attached as they expand laterally, perpendicular to the axis of attachment?
If they're not, I don't see how these structures can be described as muscles.
Will you guys stop griping and eat yer soylent green? You'll feel much better and less gripey on a full stomach of ground-up stomach (and other bits).
Based on nothing more than this rant, you've made yourself a friend and fan today. Let's call it a movement, nay, a revolution!
Nope, I'm not joking.
OpenID has instant telephone verification even for simple site logins NOW, and it works. I just enabled it the other day and tested it.
I've been aware of this effect for two decades, and it's all about an absence of feedback from car to driver. Think about the feedback that you get as a "driver" when you ride a bicycle: the faster you want to move, the harder you have to work physically and the greater the feedback you get from both the bicycle and your own muscles.
That is precisely what is missing in modern cars. Not only is there no physical work involved - we now even have power steering, power windows, power everything - but the engine is largely silent at all speeds, the tires don't hum, the shocks are quiet; the interior is like a virtual womb.
The last vehicle I drove, for 14 years, was a 1989 Mercury Tracer (which had the same engine as a Mazda 323). I miss that little vehicle for the degree of feedback that it gave me as the driver: the engine actually made noise and vibration that increased as I drive faster, etc. Even though I still don't drive a "luxury car" by any means, I don't get that so much since then. Fortunately I still have what you might call muscle memory of the Tracer.
If we REALLY want to make cars safer, AND teach people to use fuel more wisely, then vehicles should be made much more an extension of our physical bodies; there should be some tangible or physical consequence and feedback from driving faster or driving recklessly.
To hell with trying to placate people by trying to describe myself as a "bright" or "humanist" or whatever or whatever term is politically correct this month. If people are too stupid to use an objective definition of a word rather than some emotionally-charged mental imagery, then they're not worth the effort on my part. NBC/Syfy can coddle them if it wants, since clearly it seems to want to part those fools from their money.
In other words, ASA rating?
I wasn't "siding" with Blockbuster. I have no more emotional attachment to Blockbuster than I do the OP. You're making the mistake of assuming that I must have such an attachment to one or the other. Just because I thought the OP was disproportionate doesn't mean that I favor Blockbuster in any way; in fact I don't. I've set foot in a Blockbuster store exactly ONCE, and that small number was not coincidental.
You've just committed a logical fallacy; welcome to Slashdot!
Meh. If I want audiophile headphones, I look across the border from Germany: Austria's AKG.
Oh, look, Mommy: another man with a poor grasp of dead-pan sarcasm!
You might wanna get some CBT for that literalism.
It might be worth writing home about, if this were behavior unexpected of a business like Blockbuster. It's not unexpected. That's why they have a disclaimer disavowing any responsibility for prior notification of changes to policy or service. The very existence of that disclaimer demonstrates the degree of regard Blockbuster has for the other parties in its contracts; anyone who then acts shocked when they get quietly reamed from behind by Blockbuster is demonstrating their own poor comprehension of the agreement they signed. If you don't like their ability to modify the terms at their whim, then don't sign the damned thing in the first place. Do you have any idea how routine this practice really is? Credit card companies, banks, lenders, cable companies, telecoms, and virtually every other large corporation that offers a service have similar disclaimers in their contracts, and they all routinely manipulate the terms of those contracts to their benefit. The disclaimers certainly aren't present for your benefit.
The real news would be a service corporation that doesn't have such a disclaimer.
You don't have a very good grasp of dead-pan sarcasm, do you? Yep, good thing YOU were there to save the world from my too-serious literalism!
Maybe you can find out, if they ever open brick-and-mortar stores.
Why did this submission from an oh-the-world-owes-me-a-livin' whiner make it to the front page? The change in policy could be argued as perfectly reasonable - assuming it's even really a change in policy - whether this person happens to approve or not. Clearly he feels some sense of entitlement; whether he had a right to feel entitled is another matter. In any case he's doing the right thing by voting with his dollar, but why is this such a blockbuster that he has to shout about it?
ya know?
Can somebody please explain to me how an international treaty qualifies as a national secret? o_O
Once again, so much for transparency. Instead we get FUDge!
... and not all of it from the magnets themselves.
True! The GUI merely provides more flexibility in its expression. A GUI reduces the "granularity" from a character block to a pixel block.
I could probably live happily with a character- and mouse-based GUI, if such still existed in wide use.