>"Actually, if we are talking about firearms, as long as you give it a serial number, and keep it as a single shot, sub.50 round, that's exactly what it means. It's when you try to distribute it that Uncle Sam has a problem."
There are a LOT of factors to consider..... Mere possession, in any way, of a firearm (of any type, no matter how you came about it) by a felon, for example, is a Federal crime. Carrying a firearm legally obtained, in a concealed way, without being properly licensed, off your own property, is a serious crime in the vast majority of States- again, regardless of where the firearm came from or how it came into your possession. I could go on, but I think you get the idea. That is what I was saying. I am not disagreeing with anything else you are saying. Just warning people that "printing" a gun, doesn't get around any of the various firearm laws (except maybe the purchasing part).
>"Out of interest what sport is an AR-15 suited to?"
Generally the same thing as all other semi-automatic rifles, like hunting and target shooting. There are plenty of more "dangerous" older and newer semi-automatic rifles. The AR-15 just "looks" more military-ish. It's main advantages are flexibility, affordability, reliability of the design, and interchangeability of parts and accessories.
If you don't mind it exploding in your hand when you target practice. I can think of a million better/more useful things to make with a 3D printer than an unreliable, dangerous, inaccurate, single-shot, plastic "gun".
Also, just because you can make it yourself doesn't mean it is legal to do so, or possess it, or carry it, or use it. Just like buying a car doesn't mean you can legally drive it, or making your own meth means you can use it.
At stake was the fact that the INFORMATION ITSELF is not illegal to document/share/know. In that regard, it was a correct decision. It was a win for the 1st Amendment because it is just information. The win for the 2nd Amendment wasn't making plastic guns, it was the statement that the government also correctly acknowledged that "non-automatic firearms up to.50-caliber -- including modern semi-auto sporting rifles such as the popular AR-15 and similar firearms -- are not inherently military."
>"Of course guns are military. What a stupid thing to say. Thanks, Trump!"
? The article said:
"The government expressly acknowledges that non-automatic firearms up to.50-caliber -- including modern semi-auto sporting rifles such as the popular AR-15 and similar firearms -- are not inherently military."
And that is 100% true. It didn't say "guns are military" or "guns are not military", they said that non-automatic firearms UP TO.50 caliber are not INHERENTLY military (IE, exclusively for military use).
> "and it is already considering an overhaul that would see HBO produce more video that can compete for the attention of smartphone users, even if that means upending HBO's longtime strategy of producing a relatively small number of high-quality shows."
Well, I guess you can kiss HBO goodbye, then. Because that is the ONLY thing that makes it worth having; things like Westworld, Sopranos, Oz, Game of Thrones, Room 104, and such. PLENTY of other networks for the type of lower quality, high quantity stuff.
If you want to get rid of something, please make it Bill Maher.
>"Instead of accepting this and thus that pure capitalism is not perfect, people try to change the definition of it."
Pure capitalism *is* perfect, in theory. Unfettered capitalism works great assuming perfect information availability, perfect freedom, and perfectly educated and informed consumers. The problem is that doesn't happen like that in the real world. Hence, the need for some limited regulation to help stop monopolies from taking over and destroying competition.
The tricky part is striking the correct balance of "regulation". Once you start over-regulating, everyone loses just as much as if there were no regulation (through stifling of innovation, lack of initiative, higher prices, poorer quality, and ultimately fewer choices).
>"Friendly reminder of what socialism is: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"
Like I said, one of several definitions. Here is another (straight from Wikipedia":
"Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterized by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production as well as the political theories and movements associated with them[...]"
Note the words "social systems" in that definition. And those are often defined as:
"the patterned network of relationships constituting a coherent whole that exist between individuals, groups, and institutions."
So put them together and you can end up with:
"Socialism is a range of collective ownership and democratic control of the patterned network of relationships that exist between individuals, groups, and institutions as well as the political theories and movements associated with them"
Socialism is an economic matter and/or a social matter. It is usually hard to separate one from the other. Generally speaking, the "left" is very much interested in controlling individuals' freedoms and choices in the name of the collective. The "right" is very much interested in preserving individuals' freedoms and choices from the control of the collective. Nothing is quite that simple, of course, but it is the general flavor.
I wish they were polling and seriously considering it here, in the USA. I 100% want to abandon time changing and stay on DTS (summer time) year-round. Almost everyone I know wants it, too. It is ridiculous that we don't just act and do it.
>"I am what you would call a "leftist" or even worst an egalitarian "socialist"[...](e.g. everybody no matter skin color, gender, sexuality , wealth or political affiliation should have the same equality of opportunity "
That is not my understanding or observations at all. Actually, that is more of a Centrist or Right position that you stated, not "Left". The Right believes in equality of opportunity. The Left believes in equality of OUTCOMES (like so called "equal opportunity"). The latter is requires limiting/punishing/"equalizing" those who do well based on group identity to try and force equal outcomes and wealth distribution (one of several definitions of Socialism).
Otherwise, I agree with what you are saying that she was rightfully fired, both political parties have loud mouths and bad players, and that generally it is a minority of troublemakers.
>"The obvious solution is to switch to Libre Offices.;)"
You beat me to it. I was going to post:
"But Libre Offices makes you more open."
Humor aside, any study will need to take into account the exact jobs being performed, because that will make a HUGE difference in productivity effects. And the individuals matter too- I am easily distracted and stressed by noise and commotion. If I were forced to work in an "open office plan" (cubicle), my productivity would tank. However, I do like being in CLOSE PROXIMITY to my staff and coworkers... I just need my own closed/quiet space. I think a lot of people are similar, even if they don't recognize it.
>" to exceptional people who have the drive to help us complete our mission"
Is the mission ever actually "complete"? Besides, sometimes it seems the mission is just to change things constantly in a way that irritates as many users as possible.
I don't disagree that there are many other important factors (including rest, stretching, strengthening, body position, monitor height, wrist angles, typing methods), but I also have changed chairs and lowered my desk, too. Also improved arm/hand positioning over the years. I don't know why split keyboards help me so much, but they do (in my case, with CTS and arm/wrist RSI).
I don't like the old IBM keyboards because they are so loud and the force to type is too high. But I do love the construction, quality, removable keycaps, non-yellowing plastic, and replaceable cords.
Nowadays I am stuck having to use a "split" keyboard with raised front due to CTS and RSI. I am constantly amazed at how much difference it makes. If I am forced to use a traditional keyboard (like on a laptop or someone else's desktop), I am in pain in just 10 minutes or less... sometimes lasting hours afterwards.
>"We don't have to stand behind it today. We shouldn't."
Indeed. I wouldn't ever deny the horrible things that happened in history. But I won't ignore the great and wonderful things either. What happened to the Native Americans was way beyond unfortunate- something that inevitably seems to happen whenever ANY more technologically advanced culture on the move encounters another. History is full of it, all over the world. Going back far enough, I am sure my European ancestors were slaves or slave owners, thieves and saints, nobility and commoners, murderers and heroes, good and immoral, poor and rich, bright and dim.
And, yet, a wonderful country WAS born, and set forth ideals far beyond what they could accomplish at the time. I remember the past, but also choose to look forward, knowing *we* (none of us) are responsible for what happened before we were born. Trying to hide or embellish where we have been doesn't help, but neither does demanding reparations.
I choose to believe in the ability of our country to overcome adversity. It is the freedom that was born from the Declaration of Independence and cemented in the Constitution's Bill of Rights that enabled us to become one of the best countries on earth. I would hate to see that all go away in the name of safety, convenience, or not offending anyone.
>"Video editing and compositing is fantastic these days. "
I don't think the point of uploading videos is to actually CAUSE a violation or fine or anything, I am not sure that would even be legal (at least in the USA). But it could cast probable cause that could be used later if they are actually caught by the police doing something wrong that is similar. Or, it could act as evidence if the act was called in first, real-time, and the police were able to catch them doing whatever it was they were doing. For example, call and report a drunk driver, live. You have video. The police respond and catch up to that driver and pull him over. The video could be used as additional evidence when later uploaded. Same thing with a hit-and-run, there should be physical evidence already on the perp's car. Or a stolen car in which someone caught it on video. Or a robbed bank. Etc.
Of course, your point is very valid and any third-party evidence would have to be examined carefully to look for tampering.
>"I come to a complete stop at stop signs and people often react badly. It throws the 'roll through' drivers off their rhythm."
Around here, I would guess that about 80% of Stop signs don't require a "full" stop to assess if it is safe to proceed. Probably HALF of them could be safely replaced with Yield signs. Alas, it seems people don't comprehend what "Yield" means, so seeing a Yield sign is rare, indeed. Instead, we have more and more and more 4-way stops.
>"Never misread a sign? Gone the wrong way down a one way street - or driven at 70mph in a 60mph zone?"
Yeah, I have mixed feelings too.
It is one thing to report someone with a hit-and-run, weaving in and out of traffic, driving drunk, riding on the wrong side of the road, going 40MPH over the speed limit, or backing up an exit ramp and such.... and quite another when it is an expired tag, not coming to an ABSOLUTE stop at a stop sign, or running a yellow light.
>"Now this is a reason for bothering courts, unleashing lawyers and inquisite online activities: finding out who dared to desecrate a few unfinished seconds of a silly show."
+1
I was thinking the same thing. Seriously? One *PARTIAL* SCENE? Who cares??? I understand it might be annoying and could be worse later. But I would think there are far better "witch hunts" to be performed. Consider it free marketing as a trailer and move on.
>"I think we have a really deep cultural problem, fueled by the IM applications were there is an "expectation" of being available all the time.."
Yes, that, and also not understanding the better ways to contact individuals based on who they are and what the topic/content is. The example I give is repeatedly trying to educate my family NOT to text me with things that don't REQUIRE reasonably fast response:
1) General info and/or long, and can wait: Send Email.
2) Specific questions or info that need a response soon, but can wait a while: Send a Text or IM
3) Need a response RIGHT NOW, or it is beyond words: Call.
It is amazing to me that so many people don't think about how someone else might try to manage their time. If I want to know if a friend might want to go to a movie next Saturday- it seems obvious that Email is the best way. It is also best if it is complex or long. I can type very fast, look at a large and easy to read screen, attach lots of stuff, have nice folders and filters and organization, quote what was said so a response can be asynchronous, have far fewer mistakes, everything is just much easier and more convenient. Email should be far from dead.
Some people will text EVERYTHING and then be upset when they don't get an immediate answer, or a 100 word response (who wants to type on a phone??) Others will call with things that are not important or urgent and are easily answered with a few words in a text message.
Also, I don't have a phone GLUED to me 24/7. I don't keep it in my bedroom, EVER. I don't carry it around with me in the yard or throughout the house. I guess what I am trying to say is...
"Know the individual to whom you are trying to communicate with before choosing a communication method or making assumptions about why they haven't responded."
Agreed. And in those cases, it should be pretty easy for an algorithm to spot the useless nature or trend of that person's ratings and prevent those from contaminating the overall rating (at least in cases like Netflix, where the rater is known and has a history).
But if that kind of extreme bias is the problem, then a two-point scale of "like" and "dislike" is just as useless. It would better to find a way to filter out useless ratings or a reasonable scale (like 5 points)... not so hard for Netflix, for example, since they are known/logged in people. If their ratings are nothing but 1 and 5, or unrealistically positive or negative, or never enough ratings, then limit the usefulness of their ratings when applied to other people (the group value). For the customer's OWN use, they still might have some value, however.
>"Let's say you watched two movies in a row and you really liked both a lot. Under a 5-star system you would rate them both a "5", which means you cannot express through the rating which one you liked more."
But nobody has watched only two movies before. Most people will think about all the hundreds or even thousands of movies they have seen and try to rate it based on that knowledge. In your example, I would rate both based on what I have SEEN before, not just those two in isolation or against only each other in some endless 2-by-2 comparison.
I rarely rate a movie a 5 stars. To me, those are the best of the best (ones I will likely want to watch several times over again in the coming years). I started keeping my own spreadsheet years ago, afraid sites like Netflix would do EXACTLY what they are doing now (destroying ratings). It is certainly not complete (because I have seen a LOT more), but I have my ratings for 981 movies on a 5 point scale. Keep in mind, I usually only watch/buy/rent movies I think I will like (based on genre, Netflix scores, reviews, etc).... but my average is still 3.53 stars across those. Here is my distribution (rounded to whole stars, because sometimes I even use fractions) :
5's 64 4's 452 3's 417 2's 41 1's 5
Again, if you had me rate movies chosen for me at random, without knowing anything about me, there would be a LOT more 1's and 2's, and significantly more 3's. Had I been forced to use only a "like/dislike" scale, then my 3's ratings mean nothing, which is a HUGE number of my ratings. And the precious 5's would just get mixed in with the 4's... destroying a huge amount of useful information.
Slashdot Mirror
>"Actually, if we are talking about firearms, as long as you give it a serial number, and keep it as a single shot, sub .50 round, that's exactly what it means. It's when you try to distribute it that Uncle Sam has a problem."
There are a LOT of factors to consider..... Mere possession, in any way, of a firearm (of any type, no matter how you came about it) by a felon, for example, is a Federal crime. Carrying a firearm legally obtained, in a concealed way, without being properly licensed, off your own property, is a serious crime in the vast majority of States- again, regardless of where the firearm came from or how it came into your possession. I could go on, but I think you get the idea. That is what I was saying. I am not disagreeing with anything else you are saying. Just warning people that "printing" a gun, doesn't get around any of the various firearm laws (except maybe the purchasing part).
>"Out of interest what sport is an AR-15 suited to?"
Generally the same thing as all other semi-automatic rifles, like hunting and target shooting. There are plenty of more "dangerous" older and newer semi-automatic rifles. The AR-15 just "looks" more military-ish. It's main advantages are flexibility, affordability, reliability of the design, and interchangeability of parts and accessories.
>"Finally, a good reason to get that 3D printer!"
If you don't mind it exploding in your hand when you target practice. I can think of a million better/more useful things to make with a 3D printer than an unreliable, dangerous, inaccurate, single-shot, plastic "gun".
Also, just because you can make it yourself doesn't mean it is legal to do so, or possess it, or carry it, or use it. Just like buying a car doesn't mean you can legally drive it, or making your own meth means you can use it.
At stake was the fact that the INFORMATION ITSELF is not illegal to document/share/know. In that regard, it was a correct decision. It was a win for the 1st Amendment because it is just information. The win for the 2nd Amendment wasn't making plastic guns, it was the statement that the government also correctly acknowledged that "non-automatic firearms up to .50-caliber -- including modern semi-auto sporting rifles such as the popular AR-15 and similar firearms -- are not inherently military."
>"Of course guns are military. What a stupid thing to say. Thanks, Trump!"
? The article said:
"The government expressly acknowledges that non-automatic firearms up to .50-caliber -- including modern semi-auto sporting rifles such as the popular AR-15 and similar firearms -- are not inherently military."
And that is 100% true. It didn't say "guns are military" or "guns are not military", they said that non-automatic firearms UP TO .50 caliber are not INHERENTLY military (IE, exclusively for military use).
> "and it is already considering an overhaul that would see HBO produce more video that can compete for the attention of smartphone users, even if that means upending HBO's longtime strategy of producing a relatively small number of high-quality shows."
Well, I guess you can kiss HBO goodbye, then. Because that is the ONLY thing that makes it worth having; things like Westworld, Sopranos, Oz, Game of Thrones, Room 104, and such. PLENTY of other networks for the type of lower quality, high quantity stuff.
If you want to get rid of something, please make it Bill Maher.
>"Instead of accepting this and thus that pure capitalism is not perfect, people try to change the definition of it."
Pure capitalism *is* perfect, in theory. Unfettered capitalism works great assuming perfect information availability, perfect freedom, and perfectly educated and informed consumers. The problem is that doesn't happen like that in the real world. Hence, the need for some limited regulation to help stop monopolies from taking over and destroying competition.
The tricky part is striking the correct balance of "regulation". Once you start over-regulating, everyone loses just as much as if there were no regulation (through stifling of innovation, lack of initiative, higher prices, poorer quality, and ultimately fewer choices).
>"Friendly reminder of what socialism is: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"
Like I said, one of several definitions. Here is another (straight from Wikipedia":
"Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterized by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production as well as the political theories and movements associated with them[...]"
Note the words "social systems" in that definition. And those are often defined as:
"the patterned network of relationships constituting a coherent whole that exist between individuals, groups, and institutions."
So put them together and you can end up with:
"Socialism is a range of collective ownership and democratic control of the patterned network of relationships that exist between individuals, groups, and institutions as well as the political theories and movements associated with them"
Socialism is an economic matter and/or a social matter. It is usually hard to separate one from the other. Generally speaking, the "left" is very much interested in controlling individuals' freedoms and choices in the name of the collective. The "right" is very much interested in preserving individuals' freedoms and choices from the control of the collective. Nothing is quite that simple, of course, but it is the general flavor.
Reply to self on typo, that is DST, not DTS.
The DTS vs. Dolby Digital arguments can start somewhere else :)
I wish they were polling and seriously considering it here, in the USA. I 100% want to abandon time changing and stay on DTS (summer time) year-round. Almost everyone I know wants it, too. It is ridiculous that we don't just act and do it.
>"I am what you would call a "leftist" or even worst an egalitarian "socialist"[...](e.g. everybody no matter skin color, gender, sexuality , wealth or political affiliation should have the same equality of opportunity "
That is not my understanding or observations at all. Actually, that is more of a Centrist or Right position that you stated, not "Left". The Right believes in equality of opportunity. The Left believes in equality of OUTCOMES (like so called "equal opportunity"). The latter is requires limiting/punishing/"equalizing" those who do well based on group identity to try and force equal outcomes and wealth distribution (one of several definitions of Socialism).
Otherwise, I agree with what you are saying that she was rightfully fired, both political parties have loud mouths and bad players, and that generally it is a minority of troublemakers.
>"Gnome is a special case, where we know in the foreseeable future that its GUI will consist of a single big button labeled NO ."
LOL!
Well, "no" + "me" = nome
>"The obvious solution is to switch to Libre Offices. ;)"
You beat me to it. I was going to post:
"But Libre Offices makes you more open."
Humor aside, any study will need to take into account the exact jobs being performed, because that will make a HUGE difference in productivity effects. And the individuals matter too- I am easily distracted and stressed by noise and commotion. If I were forced to work in an "open office plan" (cubicle), my productivity would tank. However, I do like being in CLOSE PROXIMITY to my staff and coworkers... I just need my own closed/quiet space. I think a lot of people are similar, even if they don't recognize it.
>" to exceptional people who have the drive to help us complete our mission"
Is the mission ever actually "complete"? Besides, sometimes it seems the mission is just to change things constantly in a way that irritates as many users as possible.
I don't disagree that there are many other important factors (including rest, stretching, strengthening, body position, monitor height, wrist angles, typing methods), but I also have changed chairs and lowered my desk, too. Also improved arm/hand positioning over the years. I don't know why split keyboards help me so much, but they do (in my case, with CTS and arm/wrist RSI).
I don't like the old IBM keyboards because they are so loud and the force to type is too high. But I do love the construction, quality, removable keycaps, non-yellowing plastic, and replaceable cords.
Nowadays I am stuck having to use a "split" keyboard with raised front due to CTS and RSI. I am constantly amazed at how much difference it makes. If I am forced to use a traditional keyboard (like on a laptop or someone else's desktop), I am in pain in just 10 minutes or less... sometimes lasting hours afterwards.
>"We don't have to stand behind it today. We shouldn't."
Indeed. I wouldn't ever deny the horrible things that happened in history. But I won't ignore the great and wonderful things either. What happened to the Native Americans was way beyond unfortunate- something that inevitably seems to happen whenever ANY more technologically advanced culture on the move encounters another. History is full of it, all over the world. Going back far enough, I am sure my European ancestors were slaves or slave owners, thieves and saints, nobility and commoners, murderers and heroes, good and immoral, poor and rich, bright and dim.
And, yet, a wonderful country WAS born, and set forth ideals far beyond what they could accomplish at the time. I remember the past, but also choose to look forward, knowing *we* (none of us) are responsible for what happened before we were born. Trying to hide or embellish where we have been doesn't help, but neither does demanding reparations.
I choose to believe in the ability of our country to overcome adversity. It is the freedom that was born from the Declaration of Independence and cemented in the Constitution's Bill of Rights that enabled us to become one of the best countries on earth. I would hate to see that all go away in the name of safety, convenience, or not offending anyone.
>"Video editing and compositing is fantastic these days. "
I don't think the point of uploading videos is to actually CAUSE a violation or fine or anything, I am not sure that would even be legal (at least in the USA). But it could cast probable cause that could be used later if they are actually caught by the police doing something wrong that is similar. Or, it could act as evidence if the act was called in first, real-time, and the police were able to catch them doing whatever it was they were doing. For example, call and report a drunk driver, live. You have video. The police respond and catch up to that driver and pull him over. The video could be used as additional evidence when later uploaded. Same thing with a hit-and-run, there should be physical evidence already on the perp's car. Or a stolen car in which someone caught it on video. Or a robbed bank. Etc.
Of course, your point is very valid and any third-party evidence would have to be examined carefully to look for tampering.
>"I come to a complete stop at stop signs and people often react badly. It throws the 'roll through' drivers off their rhythm."
Around here, I would guess that about 80% of Stop signs don't require a "full" stop to assess if it is safe to proceed. Probably HALF of them could be safely replaced with Yield signs. Alas, it seems people don't comprehend what "Yield" means, so seeing a Yield sign is rare, indeed. Instead, we have more and more and more 4-way stops.
>"Never misread a sign? Gone the wrong way down a one way street - or driven at 70mph in a 60mph zone?"
Yeah, I have mixed feelings too.
It is one thing to report someone with a hit-and-run, weaving in and out of traffic, driving drunk, riding on the wrong side of the road, going 40MPH over the speed limit, or backing up an exit ramp and such.... and quite another when it is an expired tag, not coming to an ABSOLUTE stop at a stop sign, or running a yellow light.
>"Now this is a reason for bothering courts, unleashing lawyers and inquisite online activities: finding out who dared to desecrate a few unfinished seconds of a silly show."
+1
I was thinking the same thing. Seriously? One *PARTIAL* SCENE? Who cares??? I understand it might be annoying and could be worse later. But I would think there are far better "witch hunts" to be performed. Consider it free marketing as a trailer and move on.
>"I think we have a really deep cultural problem, fueled by the IM applications were there is an "expectation" of being available all the time.."
Yes, that, and also not understanding the better ways to contact individuals based on who they are and what the topic/content is. The example I give is repeatedly trying to educate my family NOT to text me with things that don't REQUIRE reasonably fast response:
1) General info and/or long, and can wait: Send Email.
2) Specific questions or info that need a response soon, but can wait a while: Send a Text or IM
3) Need a response RIGHT NOW, or it is beyond words: Call.
It is amazing to me that so many people don't think about how someone else might try to manage their time. If I want to know if a friend might want to go to a movie next Saturday- it seems obvious that Email is the best way. It is also best if it is complex or long. I can type very fast, look at a large and easy to read screen, attach lots of stuff, have nice folders and filters and organization, quote what was said so a response can be asynchronous, have far fewer mistakes, everything is just much easier and more convenient. Email should be far from dead.
Some people will text EVERYTHING and then be upset when they don't get an immediate answer, or a 100 word response (who wants to type on a phone??) Others will call with things that are not important or urgent and are easily answered with a few words in a text message.
Also, I don't have a phone GLUED to me 24/7. I don't keep it in my bedroom, EVER. I don't carry it around with me in the yard or throughout the house. I guess what I am trying to say is...
"Know the individual to whom you are trying to communicate with before choosing a communication method or making assumptions about why they haven't responded."
Agreed. And in those cases, it should be pretty easy for an algorithm to spot the useless nature or trend of that person's ratings and prevent those from contaminating the overall rating (at least in cases like Netflix, where the rater is known and has a history).
But if that kind of extreme bias is the problem, then a two-point scale of "like" and "dislike" is just as useless. It would better to find a way to filter out useless ratings or a reasonable scale (like 5 points)... not so hard for Netflix, for example, since they are known/logged in people. If their ratings are nothing but 1 and 5, or unrealistically positive or negative, or never enough ratings, then limit the usefulness of their ratings when applied to other people (the group value). For the customer's OWN use, they still might have some value, however.
Perhaps all they need to do is offer a better definition of the scale to those rating it...
>"Let's say you watched two movies in a row and you really liked both a lot. Under a 5-star system you would rate them both a "5", which means you cannot express through the rating which one you liked more."
But nobody has watched only two movies before. Most people will think about all the hundreds or even thousands of movies they have seen and try to rate it based on that knowledge. In your example, I would rate both based on what I have SEEN before, not just those two in isolation or against only each other in some endless 2-by-2 comparison.
I rarely rate a movie a 5 stars. To me, those are the best of the best (ones I will likely want to watch several times over again in the coming years). I started keeping my own spreadsheet years ago, afraid sites like Netflix would do EXACTLY what they are doing now (destroying ratings). It is certainly not complete (because I have seen a LOT more), but I have my ratings for 981 movies on a 5 point scale. Keep in mind, I usually only watch/buy/rent movies I think I will like (based on genre, Netflix scores, reviews, etc).... but my average is still 3.53 stars across those. Here is my distribution (rounded to whole stars, because sometimes I even use fractions) :
5's 64
4's 452
3's 417
2's 41
1's 5
Again, if you had me rate movies chosen for me at random, without knowing anything about me, there would be a LOT more 1's and 2's, and significantly more 3's. Had I been forced to use only a "like/dislike" scale, then my 3's ratings mean nothing, which is a HUGE number of my ratings. And the precious 5's would just get mixed in with the 4's... destroying a huge amount of useful information.