Aaah, but your post ignores the fact that portable music have been around for quite some time, much longer then subwoofers and dolby digital surround have been common place. People became use to listening to their music with shitty quality long ago.
Portable tvs (the hand-held ones) on the other hand never took off anywhere near as much. I doubt very much that Apple will be able to make a large difference on this (for any sustained period of time).
My parents are finally decomissioning one of their two Betamax machines.
Wow! Those betamax machines were certainly built to last! Even if your parents didn't use them that much.
Heck, they still get broadcast TV over a roof-top antenna!
Which I plan to do myself when I move out of home. I can't see roof-top antenna's ever being decomissioned unless:
1) every station agrees to stop transmitting their data that way or
2) basic television becomes free even when sent via cable-line (not to be confused with cable companies;)) or
3) the government passes a law forcing the television companies to stop doing it or
4) Television dies:D
Subscribing to cable is just a waste of money for people who don't watch a lot of tv.
Everybody I know has at least a DVD player in their home, most actually having a DVD recorder of some form and most having a home theater PC.
Right. And I'm assuming most/everyone you know is either very technically minded or has a lot of money. Because I doubt very much that a DVD recorder is the norm in America, with most people having a home theater PC (what do you mean by that?).
Over here in Australia the norm is a DVD and a VCR, with some people having a home theater big screen (although it isn't common by any stretch of the imagination). I imagine that America has a lot more DVR's (the only one I know of being sold in Australia is a proprietry one developed by a cable company that may or may not work with normal tv or other cable companies), I can't see DVD recorders being the norm. I know Australia's normally a little behind America, but I doubt it's that far behind.
Re:And TiVo will be buried by...
on
TiVo Buries the VCR
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I don't see it myself. Unless the content can be enlarged to tv-size (and there are very large televisions out there;) But let's say your average sized one) with no degredation (well, no quality-loss that a human can perceive anyway), I can't see the Itunes Video Store taking off. While it might be good to watch it on a small screen for those who have a lot of shows with no time to watch them, most people will want something more lasting then something that can only be viewed on a small screen for their $2.
Marketting garbage for future technology
on
TiVo Buries the VCR
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Brian Lucas, a spokesman for Best Buy, said that the retailer carries less than 10 models of standalone VCRs now. Ten years ago, it carried more than two dozen.
Uh-huh. That's certainly a guarded comment (designed to make the death of the VCR look like it will occur much sooner then it will), how many models of VCR-included technology does the retailer have?
The amount of models isn't even that important, it's how many are being sold (and if they've made them last longer, even that isn't as important, although I doubt that they've improved it's longevity somehow).
The amount of people using alternate technologies to VCR's, while it's increased, is far from dominant in any market. And I'd hardly say that the VCR market is fragile. While VCRs with content are becoming less and less common, blank VCRs are still the most common (along with cheapest and easiest) method of recording content off the television. And Tivo can't expect to lead (or even be a major player) in the next generation of recording technology if they continue their trend of putting content disseminators before their customers.
In summary, the article twists facts to make VCRs look like they're going to become extinct much sooner then they actually will, and Tivo will need a HELL of a lot more publicity stunts if they continue with their current trend of kowtowing to content disseminators and hurting their customers.
Hey, if you can find a way to check it that isn't time-consuming or expensive then by all means, create it. But I doubt it very much, so what're you going to do about it? There isn't anything you can do, so while I don't encourage people to do it, I'm not going to stay up all night over it.
P.S. I didn't say it didn't matter. All I said was that it will be done, so people will have to live with it. I think the good (allowing all of his fans to send a personal message along with him) far outweigh the bad (allowing people to send up goatse references).
Good point. Something you don't mention though is that this debris may cause harm to vehicles attempting to escape Earth's orbit (such as on a trip to the moon). However I'm sure this was considered when permission was given to the people doing this, so it's more then likely not a problem.
Why bother pointing this out if it's not a problem? Because someone else was likely to (and perhaps give it a more negative spin).
If it's never to be seen again and doesn't matter if it contains a few goatse references....why send it at all.
The rocket's being sent as a way to make money for the private space industry. Someone has paid for Doohan's remains to be put on board as a tribute to him. So those are both good things.
Why send goatse references? Because people will be people. While it's disrespectful, there's no way to prove it was done, and no-one's going to see it anyway (unless in 50-100 years time someone decides to go up and get the remains as a piece of history, if they can be found).
If it weren't for his disease (and later, death) I imagine he would have been right there beside Walter Koenig in a fan-produced episode.
While actors like the one that played Spock are much more famous then "the little guys" like Doohan and Koenig (not that they're very little;)), for me there's something really special about them willing to go that extra mile for their fans (and enjoying it as well) that puts them above others, such as the actor who played Kirk.
If they're willing to act out the love scenes a lot more, I'm willing to go see it. ESPECIALLY if they allow for audience participation. Hmmm.. actually. I think I'll wait to see who the actresses are first before saying I'd see it. Might have some ugly woman there.
1. Impossible to comprehend or grasp fully: inconceivable folly; an inconceivable disaster.
2. So unlikely or surprising as to have been thought impossible; unbelievable:
I disagree. It sounds like he knows EXACTLY what it means.
Oh for fuck's sake. It's in the fucking article that their experiment was inspired by the MythBuster's episode. They felt the Mythbusters didn't do it very well, and wanted to try it themselves. Based on the experiment, it's possible that the "Death Ray" existed, but they do point out that their experiment is rough, and also doesn't prove that it was used.
Ancient Greek and Roman historians recorded that during the siege of Syracuse in 212 BC, Archimedes (a notably smart person) constructed a burning glass to set the Roman warships, anchored within bow and arrow range, afire.
What was the "death ray" attached to? Oooh. I know. Fricken sharks!
If I'm understanding this right, the magnetic properties of the solar flare cause the decrease in CME's? If so, couldn't ships magnetize their hull to shield the people inside? It obviously won't stop all the CME's, but it will decrease it.
Might turn out Enterprise's "ionize the hull" isn't as much sci-fi nonesense as it first sounds.
I had the same thought after I posted my comment. I would have pointed out the double meaning myself, but I thought I'd get modded down (plus I was too excited about getting first post! Wooo!)
And with what I've heard about the Telco's based on slashdotters, I wouldn't be surprised if they WERE crippling their customers. Obviously only from the waist down. Anything else would be bad for business.
Slashdot Mirror
Aaah, but your post ignores the fact that portable music have been around for quite some time, much longer then subwoofers and dolby digital surround have been common place. People became use to listening to their music with shitty quality long ago.
Portable tvs (the hand-held ones) on the other hand never took off anywhere near as much. I doubt very much that Apple will be able to make a large difference on this (for any sustained period of time).
My parents are finally decomissioning one of their two Betamax machines.
;)) or :D
Wow! Those betamax machines were certainly built to last! Even if your parents didn't use them that much.
Heck, they still get broadcast TV over a roof-top antenna!
Which I plan to do myself when I move out of home. I can't see roof-top antenna's ever being decomissioned unless:
1) every station agrees to stop transmitting their data that way or
2) basic television becomes free even when sent via cable-line (not to be confused with cable companies
3) the government passes a law forcing the television companies to stop doing it or
4) Television dies
Subscribing to cable is just a waste of money for people who don't watch a lot of tv.
Everybody I know has at least a DVD player in their home, most actually having a DVD recorder of some form and most having a home theater PC.
Right. And I'm assuming most/everyone you know is either very technically minded or has a lot of money. Because I doubt very much that a DVD recorder is the norm in America, with most people having a home theater PC (what do you mean by that?).
Over here in Australia the norm is a DVD and a VCR, with some people having a home theater big screen (although it isn't common by any stretch of the imagination). I imagine that America has a lot more DVR's (the only one I know of being sold in Australia is a proprietry one developed by a cable company that may or may not work with normal tv or other cable companies), I can't see DVD recorders being the norm. I know Australia's normally a little behind America, but I doubt it's that far behind.
I don't see it myself. Unless the content can be enlarged to tv-size (and there are very large televisions out there ;) But let's say your average sized one) with no degredation (well, no quality-loss that a human can perceive anyway), I can't see the Itunes Video Store taking off. While it might be good to watch it on a small screen for those who have a lot of shows with no time to watch them, most people will want something more lasting then something that can only be viewed on a small screen for their $2.
Brian Lucas, a spokesman for Best Buy, said that the retailer carries less than 10 models of standalone VCRs now. Ten years ago, it carried more than two dozen.
Uh-huh. That's certainly a guarded comment (designed to make the death of the VCR look like it will occur much sooner then it will), how many models of VCR-included technology does the retailer have?
The amount of models isn't even that important, it's how many are being sold (and if they've made them last longer, even that isn't as important, although I doubt that they've improved it's longevity somehow).
The amount of people using alternate technologies to VCR's, while it's increased, is far from dominant in any market. And I'd hardly say that the VCR market is fragile. While VCRs with content are becoming less and less common, blank VCRs are still the most common (along with cheapest and easiest) method of recording content off the television. And Tivo can't expect to lead (or even be a major player) in the next generation of recording technology if they continue their trend of putting content disseminators before their customers.
In summary, the article twists facts to make VCRs look like they're going to become extinct much sooner then they actually will, and Tivo will need a HELL of a lot more publicity stunts if they continue with their current trend of kowtowing to content disseminators and hurting their customers.
Hey, if you can find a way to check it that isn't time-consuming or expensive then by all means, create it. But I doubt it very much, so what're you going to do about it? There isn't anything you can do, so while I don't encourage people to do it, I'm not going to stay up all night over it.
P.S. I didn't say it didn't matter. All I said was that it will be done, so people will have to live with it. I think the good (allowing all of his fans to send a personal message along with him) far outweigh the bad (allowing people to send up goatse references).
Good point. Something you don't mention though is that this debris may cause harm to vehicles attempting to escape Earth's orbit (such as on a trip to the moon). However I'm sure this was considered when permission was given to the people doing this, so it's more then likely not a problem.
Why bother pointing this out if it's not a problem? Because someone else was likely to (and perhaps give it a more negative spin).
If it's never to be seen again and doesn't matter if it contains a few goatse references....why send it at all.
The rocket's being sent as a way to make money for the private space industry. Someone has paid for Doohan's remains to be put on board as a tribute to him. So those are both good things.
Why send goatse references? Because people will be people. While it's disrespectful, there's no way to prove it was done, and no-one's going to see it anyway (unless in 50-100 years time someone decides to go up and get the remains as a piece of history, if they can be found).
If it weren't for his disease (and later, death) I imagine he would have been right there beside Walter Koenig in a fan-produced episode.
;)), for me there's something really special about them willing to go that extra mile for their fans (and enjoying it as well) that puts them above others, such as the actor who played Kirk.
While actors like the one that played Spock are much more famous then "the little guys" like Doohan and Koenig (not that they're very little
Some error in publication?
You mean like in E-books?
Somhow I don't think this will revolutionize the industry as much as you seem to think.
Actually it was intelligently designed three times... birds, insects and bats. It was unintelligently designed once as well, in 1909.
He has a point. Superman DIDN'T evolve on this planet. Why's he modded funny?
It seems to go back to October the 13th. Although of what year? That's the million dollar question.
He doesn't care what people think and often tries to cut through red tape without undue sensitivity towards vested interest.
Wow. He almost sounds honest. Almost.
If they're willing to act out the love scenes a lot more, I'm willing to go see it. ESPECIALLY if they allow for audience participation. Hmmm.. actually. I think I'll wait to see who the actresses are first before saying I'd see it. Might have some ugly woman there.
Stop saying that!!
Stuff that Matters
Looks like they get part one of their slogan, but they haven't got part 2.
Nothing new. Nada. Oh, except maybe Serenity........
Good god! You're right man. Because nothing says originality like a movie set in the same universe as a television show.
inconceivable (n'kn-s'v-bl) pronunciation
adj.
1. Impossible to comprehend or grasp fully: inconceivable folly; an inconceivable disaster.
2. So unlikely or surprising as to have been thought impossible; unbelievable:
I disagree. It sounds like he knows EXACTLY what it means.
Oh for fuck's sake. It's in the fucking article that their experiment was inspired by the MythBuster's episode. They felt the Mythbusters didn't do it very well, and wanted to try it themselves. Based on the experiment, it's possible that the "Death Ray" existed, but they do point out that their experiment is rough, and also doesn't prove that it was used.
Ancient Greek and Roman historians recorded that during the siege of Syracuse in 212 BC, Archimedes (a notably smart person) constructed a burning glass to set the Roman warships, anchored within bow and arrow range, afire.
What was the "death ray" attached to? Oooh. I know. Fricken sharks!
Next thing you know, they will discover anti-matter or photons or something really crazy like that.
Well sorry for not realizing this beforehand. Sheeesh.
No, the real answer is to have space missions start on Sun-days. har har har har.
In space no-one can hear your terrible puns.
If I'm understanding this right, the magnetic properties of the solar flare cause the decrease in CME's? If so, couldn't ships magnetize their hull to shield the people inside? It obviously won't stop all the CME's, but it will decrease it.
Might turn out Enterprise's "ionize the hull" isn't as much sci-fi nonesense as it first sounds.
I had the same thought after I posted my comment. I would have pointed out the double meaning myself, but I thought I'd get modded down (plus I was too excited about getting first post! Wooo!) And with what I've heard about the Telco's based on slashdotters, I wouldn't be surprised if they WERE crippling their customers. Obviously only from the waist down. Anything else would be bad for business.