Factoring in inflation, $.50 seems pretty reasonable to me.It's not exactly analagous to $.25 twenty years ago but I suspect it's close enough for jazz... and I'd give a lot more than $.50 to sit down in a resaurant and play on a cocktail cabinet. For some reason those things were always up by the bar (where I couldn't go) when I was a kid.
"we can't use them to look for something heading at us from the direction of the sun"
Correct me on this if I'm wrong......but isn't the sun's position relative to us constantly changing as we orbit around it? In six months wouldn't we be between the sun and any object that is currently obscured by the sun at the moment? An object couldn't remain hidden by the sun in that way...
Unless you mean something whose origin is some point nearer the sun than us, in which case it would probably be in a stable orbit, right? Even if it's not in a stable orbit, I think most natural orbits decay inward, don't they?
It actually pisses me off that I won't get to see them crash and burn on their own now. I wanted them to fail because their games sucked. Not because someone thought it would be cool to h4xx0r them.
1) That's 3 clicks per email * the rate at which you gets spams. It adds up after a while
I receive quite a bit of spam. I'll grant you that it does take a bit of dealing with everytime I fire up my mailbox, both at home and at work, it certainly doesn't have an appreciable effect on my schedule.
2) There's always the chance of a type 2 error - you could lose (either through accidental blocking or unintetional deleteing) an important email.
I don't understand how you think this criticism applies to allowing spam but not to blocking spam. It's pretty clear that it happens whether you allow spam or attempt to block it in the way that's being discussed.
3) You pay for the bandwidth that they waste, in the long run. They are simply shifting the price of getting in touch with you from themselves to you. In effect, they are calling you on your dime.
I recall reading that when Tim Burton decided to switch from clay animation to computer animation during the filming of Mars Attacks! due to the fact that they simply couldn't acheive the effects he wanted any other way, the animators told him that they could do it with or without the motion blur so that it would "feel" more like traditional clay animations.
Burton decided to keep the motion blur and not to purposely try to make the film look like something it wasn't, i.e. a traditionally animated film.
I'm not sure that's directly analogous to what you're describing is but it's worth thinking about.
Slashdot Mirror
So wait... is RC3 the final release?
Well. That certainly was... something.
Factoring in inflation, $.50 seems pretty reasonable to me.It's not exactly analagous to $.25 twenty years ago but I suspect it's close enough for jazz... and I'd give a lot more than $.50 to sit down in a resaurant and play on a cocktail cabinet. For some reason those things were always up by the bar (where I couldn't go) when I was a kid.
"we can't use them to look for something heading at us from the direction of the sun"
...but isn't the sun's position relative to us constantly changing as we orbit around it? In six months wouldn't we be between the sun and any object that is currently obscured by the sun at the moment? An object couldn't remain hidden by the sun in that way...
Correct me on this if I'm wrong...
Unless you mean something whose origin is some point nearer the sun than us, in which case it would probably be in a stable orbit, right? Even if it's not in a stable orbit, I think most natural orbits decay inward, don't they?
Am I crazy or is the male bartender in the 2nd episode wearing a Bobbins/Scary-go-Round tshirt?
Actually, I imagine you're right. It was just too interesting an image not to comment on.
However, you'd have to have fairly long arms to work a handheld gaming device that must be a minumum of six feet away, wouldn't you?
It actually pisses me off that I won't get to see them crash and burn on their own now. I wanted them to fail because their games sucked. Not because someone thought it would be cool to h4xx0r them.
1) That's 3 clicks per email * the rate at which you gets spams. It adds up after a while
I receive quite a bit of spam. I'll grant you that it does take a bit of dealing with everytime I fire up my mailbox, both at home and at work, it certainly doesn't have an appreciable effect on my schedule.
2) There's always the chance of a type 2 error - you could lose (either through accidental blocking or unintetional deleteing) an important email.
I don't understand how you think this criticism applies to allowing spam but not to blocking spam. It's pretty clear that it happens whether you allow spam or attempt to block it in the way that's being discussed.
3) You pay for the bandwidth that they waste, in the long run. They are simply shifting the price of getting in touch with you from themselves to you. In effect, they are calling you on your dime.
How is this the case?
I recall reading that when Tim Burton decided to switch from clay animation to computer animation during the filming of Mars Attacks! due to the fact that they simply couldn't acheive the effects he wanted any other way, the animators told him that they could do it with or without the motion blur so that it would "feel" more like traditional clay animations.
Burton decided to keep the motion blur and not to purposely try to make the film look like something it wasn't, i.e. a traditionally animated film.
I'm not sure that's directly analogous to what you're describing is but it's worth thinking about.
I'm not sure there's any reason to believe that he thinks of it as "art" in the first place. That's an assertion you're making, not him.
That'd be what's known as a straw man fallacy.
I had the opportunity to see them in Fayetteville, Arkansas a few years back and I have to say that it was pretty enjoyable.
The music was loud, obnoxious punk and it was obviously intended to be a lo-fi sort of experience as a contrast to the idea of robots in a band.