"It's also lead to an interesting counter-trend out of Hollywood... they're now putting out the "unrated edition" DVD for movies that had to get some scenes cut to qualify for the lower MPAA rating."
It's not a "counter-trend," it's a "profit-trend." The "Unrated" label is just a ploy to sell more DVDs. "Ooh look! This is unrated, it must be full of sex and murder! I want to see what I missed in theaters!"
Not in my eyes, no. It's some of the most beautiful cinematography and direction I've ever seen, but it's not a great movie. Certainly worth watching, though.
The problem is that nobody has seen it. It's certainly a masterpiece (it's among my favorites), but you go walk down the street and find me someone who has even heard of it.
I don't see how that makes it a good movie. That may make him a good director, but it doesn't change the movie in total.
I have seen many movies with outstanding acting performances that lacked a plot, or great plots with poor cinematography, etc. They are what they are - good performances, plots, etc., but still not good movies. The movie is the unified whole. The greatest directorial performance in history would not make a plotless movie good, it would just make it a bad movie with great direction.
I like the idea of the classic movie defcon alert - main lights go down, red flashing lights and siren come on, loop of calm female voice stating "The build is down" comes on over loudspeakers.
The problem I see is tht there's nothing keeping people on "roads," even if they make virtual ones. How many times have you seen an SUV go over a divider or on the grass on a highway because they missed their exit or are too impatient to sit in traffic? Now imagine that with no curbs, houses, etc. The sky would be full of people going as fast as possible in whatever direction suited. Sure, it's not a big deal in a rural area, but consider urban environments.
I can see this becoming annoying quite quickly. If you had just one friend who used this, but you actually had a life (that wasn't completely dependent on them), you'd constantly get pathetic messages on your phone, despite the fact that you don't want to hang out with them every night of the week. It would only take one overly extroverted person to annoy dozens of normal people.
The class was titled "Psychology, Terrorism, and Law," and in it we studied the connections between the three. I assumed that readers would interpret "terrorism class" to mean "a class studying terrorism" rather than "a class that teaches one how to become a terrorist."
My apologies, you're quite right. That's the first time I've ever made such a mistake - probably due to the fact that I spent most of the morning taking measurements to fix an airflow problem in my office. The numbers are still bouncing around in my head.
"I assume Russians define it pretty much the same way."
Don't be so sure. I took a terrorism class when I was in college, and we spent the first week or two discussing definitions of terrorism. The CIA, FBI, different dictionaries, different experts, different nations, etc., all have significantly different definitions. There are about a dozen definitions that scholarly papers regularly cite, making the word mostly useless when the definition isn't provided.
The reasons we have wiretapping have nothing to do with terrorism - that's a new issue which is forcing an expansion of a long-present technology. Wiretapping was used to combat organized crime (i.e. Mafia) long before there was a Patriot Act. The government [used to?] need court approval to tap you, just like search warrants. It's not an invasion of privacy, it's a tool for bringing down criminals. No one is listening to your conversations and writing down what you had for lunch. Why is it that so many Slashdotters have such inflated egos that they think the government wants to keep tabs on them?
Telephone surveys are implicitly biased because most people won't participate. The subgroup being surveyed is "people willing to take part in telephone surveys at the time we called them," which is quite different from the general population. The same holds for street surveys, internet surveys, etc..
If you're not going to trust 'sponsored' research, you've got no one to trust. All research is funded by someone, and that someone always has something to gain or lose (why else pay for it?). Who would pay for studies of internet movie downloading, aside from movie studios and internet corporations? What's important is to look at the studies from the opposing sides so that you can draw a line down the middle or test each against each other.
Short-sighted? Unless you think that most people commit hit-and-runs, I don't see how. If it raises their insurance, they'll stop using it. I drive a sporty car, and my premiums are through the roof, despite my flawless driving record and safe driving habits. This device has the potential to seriously reduce my rates, as my driving patterns clearly wouldn't reflect their stereotype of a 20-something male with a sports car. I don't do illegal things with my car (a few mph over the speed limit notwithstanding), and I don't see what kind of privacy I'd be losing; my car is always in public view in the first place.
Your dentist would end up in jail after your idle toothbrush sent him images of your child in the shower. Your bathtub would be tepid after you got stuck in traffic. Your fridge would order far too much food after you hosted parties, and you'd end up with a constant stream of turkeys after Thanksgiving.
You're arguing both sides here - I have no idea how to respond to you.
"That English lacks this kind of vocabulary makes you unable to conceive of it." "people can still comprehend things without having the words to describe them"
Both of those quotes are yours. Please find a mirror to talk to.
"Your initial point was that someone couldn't describe feelings such as love."
No, that's missing it completely. Someone said that people can't comprehend that which they have no words to describe, and I used feelings as an example of something that people can understand despite a lack of proper vocabulary. I think you need to read more parent posts.
You didn't provide any evidence, you simply pronounced your opinion. Don't just assume that things you believe are logical are therefore true. How do you know what I comprehend about my own feelings, and how does it have anything to do with people who speak Japanese? If you're going to call something "evidence," it had better be clearly indisputible or found in a scientific journal.
"As I mentioned elsewhere, some languages have words that describe feelings in ways that are not possible in English. That English lacks this kind of vocabulary makes you unable to conceive of it."
Excuse me, but I'll thank you not to tell me what I can and can't conceive of. Please don't place your limitations (or perceived limitations) on others when you don't have anything to back it up.
Bzzt, try again. Hunger is a singal? I don't recall seeing it on the list of human neurotransmitters. I was asking about a description of the feeling, not for a scientific definition, anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
"The fact that people are still arguing as vehemently over the movie 35 years after its release does mean it's a good movie."
Ironically posted in a thread titled "Non sequitur."
"It's also lead to an interesting counter-trend out of Hollywood... they're now putting out the "unrated edition" DVD for movies that had to get some scenes cut to qualify for the lower MPAA rating."
It's not a "counter-trend," it's a "profit-trend." The "Unrated" label is just a ploy to sell more DVDs. "Ooh look! This is unrated, it must be full of sex and murder! I want to see what I missed in theaters!"
Not in my eyes, no. It's some of the most beautiful cinematography and direction I've ever seen, but it's not a great movie. Certainly worth watching, though.
I was pointing out the non sequitur in the parent's logic. At no time did I say whether or not I liked 2001, nor did I say it had a poor plot.
The problem is that nobody has seen it. It's certainly a masterpiece (it's among my favorites), but you go walk down the street and find me someone who has even heard of it.
I don't see how that makes it a good movie. That may make him a good director, but it doesn't change the movie in total.
I have seen many movies with outstanding acting performances that lacked a plot, or great plots with poor cinematography, etc. They are what they are - good performances, plots, etc., but still not good movies. The movie is the unified whole. The greatest directorial performance in history would not make a plotless movie good, it would just make it a bad movie with great direction.
I like the idea of the classic movie defcon alert - main lights go down, red flashing lights and siren come on, loop of calm female voice stating "The build is down" comes on over loudspeakers.
The problem I see is tht there's nothing keeping people on "roads," even if they make virtual ones. How many times have you seen an SUV go over a divider or on the grass on a highway because they missed their exit or are too impatient to sit in traffic? Now imagine that with no curbs, houses, etc. The sky would be full of people going as fast as possible in whatever direction suited. Sure, it's not a big deal in a rural area, but consider urban environments.
I can see this becoming annoying quite quickly. If you had just one friend who used this, but you actually had a life (that wasn't completely dependent on them), you'd constantly get pathetic messages on your phone, despite the fact that you don't want to hang out with them every night of the week. It would only take one overly extroverted person to annoy dozens of normal people.
The class was titled "Psychology, Terrorism, and Law," and in it we studied the connections between the three. I assumed that readers would interpret "terrorism class" to mean "a class studying terrorism" rather than "a class that teaches one how to become a terrorist."
My apologies, you're quite right. That's the first time I've ever made such a mistake - probably due to the fact that I spent most of the morning taking measurements to fix an airflow problem in my office. The numbers are still bouncing around in my head.
If memory serves, CDs & DVDs are 5" in diameter.
5.0 in x 2.4 cm/in = 12.0 cm.
"I assume Russians define it pretty much the same way."
Don't be so sure. I took a terrorism class when I was in college, and we spent the first week or two discussing definitions of terrorism. The CIA, FBI, different dictionaries, different experts, different nations, etc., all have significantly different definitions. There are about a dozen definitions that scholarly papers regularly cite, making the word mostly useless when the definition isn't provided.
The reasons we have wiretapping have nothing to do with terrorism - that's a new issue which is forcing an expansion of a long-present technology. Wiretapping was used to combat organized crime (i.e. Mafia) long before there was a Patriot Act. The government [used to?] need court approval to tap you, just like search warrants. It's not an invasion of privacy, it's a tool for bringing down criminals. No one is listening to your conversations and writing down what you had for lunch. Why is it that so many Slashdotters have such inflated egos that they think the government wants to keep tabs on them?
Telephone surveys are implicitly biased because most people won't participate. The subgroup being surveyed is "people willing to take part in telephone surveys at the time we called them," which is quite different from the general population. The same holds for street surveys, internet surveys, etc..
"Apparently they don't have Universities where you live"
I happen to be a university researcher myself. I was referring to the types of surveys and studies that call a product 'good' or better than another.
If you're not going to trust 'sponsored' research, you've got no one to trust. All research is funded by someone, and that someone always has something to gain or lose (why else pay for it?). Who would pay for studies of internet movie downloading, aside from movie studios and internet corporations? What's important is to look at the studies from the opposing sides so that you can draw a line down the middle or test each against each other.
Short-sighted? Unless you think that most people commit hit-and-runs, I don't see how. If it raises their insurance, they'll stop using it. I drive a sporty car, and my premiums are through the roof, despite my flawless driving record and safe driving habits. This device has the potential to seriously reduce my rates, as my driving patterns clearly wouldn't reflect their stereotype of a 20-something male with a sports car. I don't do illegal things with my car (a few mph over the speed limit notwithstanding), and I don't see what kind of privacy I'd be losing; my car is always in public view in the first place.
Your dentist would end up in jail after your idle toothbrush sent him images of your child in the shower. Your bathtub would be tepid after you got stuck in traffic. Your fridge would order far too much food after you hosted parties, and you'd end up with a constant stream of turkeys after Thanksgiving.
No, murder requires intent to kill. They'd be guilty of involuntary manslaughter.
"And if they loose, the each member of the class could provide a coupon to the RIAA for $5 off a CD..."
Considering that the case is all about the monetary worth of mp3s, they should have to share precisely $5 worth of mp3s with the RIAA.
You're arguing both sides here - I have no idea how to respond to you.
"That English lacks this kind of vocabulary makes you unable to conceive of it."
"people can still comprehend things without having the words to describe them"
Both of those quotes are yours. Please find a mirror to talk to.
"Your initial point was that someone couldn't describe feelings such as love."
No, that's missing it completely. Someone said that people can't comprehend that which they have no words to describe, and I used feelings as an example of something that people can understand despite a lack of proper vocabulary. I think you need to read more parent posts.
You didn't provide any evidence, you simply pronounced your opinion. Don't just assume that things you believe are logical are therefore true. How do you know what I comprehend about my own feelings, and how does it have anything to do with people who speak Japanese? If you're going to call something "evidence," it had better be clearly indisputible or found in a scientific journal.
"As I mentioned elsewhere, some languages have words that describe feelings in ways that are not possible in English. That English lacks this kind of vocabulary makes you unable to conceive of it."
Excuse me, but I'll thank you not to tell me what I can and can't conceive of. Please don't place your limitations (or perceived limitations) on others when you don't have anything to back it up.
Bzzt, try again. Hunger is a singal? I don't recall seeing it on the list of human neurotransmitters. I was asking about a description of the feeling, not for a scientific definition, anyway.