So, grant an AI the right to vote and suddenly he forkbombs, and makes 87 trillion of himself before the next election.
I can solve this problem with one word:
Robocannibals.
Besides, do you thinks that HK-47 (instance 00000001a) would really be worse than... Nah, I won't go there. It's too early to get modded Flamebait yet today. I'll just let you insert the name of the politician you hate the most there, and leave it at thinking that it might be nice for our national policymakers to make decisions based on some kind of logical reasoning for a change.
I'm not so much worried about robots' legal rights in the future as I am my own legal rights. At the rate we're going, there won't be any "legal rights" left, and the point will be moot.
Still, I hope robots do have legal rights. That way, when I get old and feeble and have my consciousness transferred into my new robotic body, I'll still have 'em.
If they have the awareness to ask for legal rights, why shouldn't they have them? Have we learned nothing from Star Trek: The Next Generation?
You mean the article that keeps referring to those who believe that Stella Liebeck had merit as "the left" and "liberals"?
It sounds to me like the guy is more interested in pushing some kind of agenda than making an honest evaluation of the case based on its legal merits or lack thereof. Even if the guy is right, he's sure not helping his argument.
Also, it sounds to me like his main point is that the judge should have thrown the case out instead of letting it go to a jury trial. I'm sorry, but although sometimes juries can be stupid, I'd trust a jury much more than I'd trust a judge any day.
/had a judge once tell me, "You don't have a right to a jury trial" over a traffic offense, though it's clearly stated in the Georgia state constitution that I did /had same judge tell me after finding me guilty, "You know you never had a chance, right?"
As a result, everybody knows spotty service is an issue when they decide on *any* service provider... A much more significant factor is the family/friends connection.
Not necessarily. What if I just moved into the area, and I don't have that many local friends? What if my friends are stupid, and I'd rather trust some sort of objective report? What if my friends are generally poor and don't have cell phones? What if my friends all work at the same place and their phones all come from a single provider, affording me no comparison? What if my friends all live far enough away that their cell outages aren't the same as mine? I can keep listing if you want me to, but the point is that in order to make an informed decision about something, we need information. Who are you to say what kind of information we should or shouldn't find more valuable?
I think this article is an attempt to enrage the masses because MSNBS is angry at being rejected by the FCC.
Let's just say for a second that you 100% correct and that MSNBC is angry at being rejected their FOIA request by the FCC.
So? What difference does it make?
If MSNBC files a legitimate FOIA request (which they did), and the FCC rejects it for bogus reasons (which they did), it doesn't matter what MSNBC's motivations were or how they feel about it. It is wrong, and it needs to be fixed. Otherwise, we're setting the precedent of government denying FOIA requests for reasons that may have to do with more important things, like holding government accountable or protecting freedom.
I don't care if MSNBC wanted to use the report as toilet paper, it's publicly-funded non-national-security info that they have a right by law to get.
Still, for what it's worth, I hope the submitter isn't dealing with stuff this big and dangerous. I'm imagining him trying to set up the kind of stuff you get at your local fireworks shack so that it's timed when they go off instead of lighting it manually himself. Barring stupidity, inattentiveness, or really weird flukes such as what you've described, I would hope that messing around with them should be relatively safe.
In fact, since he'll presumably be standing far away when they're ignited, I'm almost suspecting that it would be even safer than trying to do it manually.
In either case, coolness or catastrophe, maybe we'll get to see the results on YouTube.;-)
How was he killed? What there something mortally dangerous in what he was doing, or was it just some kind of wild fluke? I've heard of people being injured with fireworks, but I can honestly say this is the first time I've heard of anyone being killed.
Your story kind of reminds me of the stories I hear of kids who get hit in the chest by a baseball, a linebacker, or whatever, and collapse dead of a heart attack on the spot. Has it happened? Sure. Is it tragic? You bet. But is it a reason for no kid to ever play baseball or football again? No, it's not.
If the guy is willing to use his common sense and exercise a little extra care to avoid blowing himself or other people up or losing a few limbs here and there, I wouldn't suggest that he not try what he wants to do because one person once died from working with fireworks.
The alternative to advertising is paying more for things.
My devil's advocate reaction to this is, "not necessarily." If company X didn't have to spend a billion dollars to counteract company Y's $900 million advertising budget, they could use that money to help save consumers dollars. Or they could put it into R&D and engineering to actually make a better product instead of just telling us it's a better product.
Also, I (and a lot of other people) are more than willing to pay a premium for ad-less products. Does anyone remember the days way back when most cable channels didn't have ads? Now you have to pay the cable company for channels with ads, and the channels that don't have ads are very expensive. (Yet notice how they still have a lot of subscribers for that premium.)
I myself don't watch ads on television at all. Every show I want to watch, I either get via iTunes download for $2 a pop (or a season subscription), or by less scrupulous means that I don't want to go into if it's not available by any other means (wink, wink). I have a few small web sites I run for personal reasons, and I buy the hosting space at a reasonable non-free price so that I don't have to subject my visitors to a barrage of ads. I run Firefox with AdBlock so that I can avoid as many ads as possible while browsing the Internet.
I still run across ads now and then, as they're unavoidable in society. The point, though, is that I still spend plenty my share of disposable income, companies still make plenty of money off of me, but they have to do it by actually having products of decent quality that I want or need, not by yelling in both my ears constantly.
In other words, there is another way.
Personally, I think the best advertising any company can have is virtually free. It's from friends who have products and tell me about them. It's from reputable website reviews that describe up-and-coming technology and products. It's from companies' own websites that provide as much real information about products I'm interested in as I need to make an informed decision. All of these things are dirt cheap compared to the billions that companies spend on radio, television and web ads that I never see or hear. Go figure.
A better solution would be to teach children how to think critically
Amen! I work in a building in downtown, which you would think would have pretty good coverage. We're literally almost right on top of the Georgia Tech campus (as in, the Tech dorms are around two blocks away), which I would think should have very good coverage. My company has a deal with Cingular so that everyone gets discounts on their phones. I kept Verizon because I spend a lot more time on the phone with my family and friends (which is free) than with my coworkers (which I suck up in the "peak minutes" I use each month).
Of course, the big difference is that they have to all walk outside to talk on the phone. I can pretty much talk on mine anywhere. More than once, someone has said, "Hey, how are you getting phone service in here?"
And yes, I know what you mean about the spotty coverage. When I do talk to one of my coworkers as they're moving around in the city, I just plan on getting disconnected. I even go so far as to sometimes tell them, "When you hit that dead spot coming up, call me back on the other side."
In spite of their mathematically challenged service reps, Verizon has always been a pretty good company for me. In Atlanta, the coverage is excellent and their prices and plans are fantastic.
I originally switched primarily because Verizon was one of a very, very few companies that refused to participate in and spoke out against the cell phone directory telemarketer's dream scheme a while back. It was pretty heavily covered by our consumer rights media guru here, Clark Howard (second entry). It also helps that most of my family is on Verizon and I can now call them for free.
So, would that make it "ironic" that you jumped head first into a high-and-mighty rant at the GP over his misunderstanding of the definition of "ironic," when in fact it was you who misunderstood that he was actually referring to your mis-use of "truthiness"?
Maybe, except that I'm still not 100% convinced that he or she is referring to the word "truthiness." Let me remind you of the OP's ambiguous statement:
Ironic that the post here misuses the word...
The OP doesn't specify which word. There are three things that lead me to believe that he or she is referring to the word "ironic":
It's become commonplace for comments on Slashdot to criticize people for using the specific word "ironic" incorrectly. Now, it's gotten to the point that these people are usually just plain wrong and in fact they don't understand what the word means.
The subject of the OP's message is "Poster needs to look up the definition..." There is no official definition of the word "truthiness" to look up, and I assume that the OP knows this. Obviously, there is a definition of the word "ironic." If the OP was questioning my use of the word "truthiness," I find it more likely that they would have worded it something like, "Poster needs to listen to the definition," or "Poster needs to refer to Colbert's definition." As a corollary to this, I gave Colbert's definition ("truth that comes from the gut, not books") in the submission. I would think that's it's pretty obvious that I'm familiar with it, and that there's no need for me to "look it up."
Even if I used the word incorrectly, then that means that the OP is misusing the word "ironic." Let's say for the sake of argument that I totally missed the boat on what "truthiness" means. How exactly is the sentence, "With media outlets like CNN and MSNBC covering it, the idea may very well have truthiness" ironic as opposed to just being a mistake (which, remember, I'm only stipulating for the sake of argument)?
Nice try though with the call to mod GP down. If only I had some mod points right now. I know for sure I'd be modding someone down.
Go for it. I've got plenty of karma to burn, and frankly, there are some people that I'd consider it an honor to be modded down by. Don't be disappointed that you don't have mod points now, I'm a semi-frequent submitter and poster, so keep me on your foes list long enough, and you'll get your chance.
sigh And I see that someone with mod points doesn't know the meaning of "Troll" or "Redundant" also.
Go ahead and mod this one down too, I dare you. Because 1) it's not like this topic isn't pretty old and dead and it matters, 2) stunning displays of ignorance on Slashdot don't make me mad, they amuse me, and 3) as much as you love modding me down, I know that you can only do so up to five times max. Deep inside, I know that I'm doing the world good, because if you're busy modding my trivial posts down, it means that you're leaving other people's more interesting posts alone. So hey, have a ball with it!;-)
For those of you with brains, I don't really care whether or not you read the posts that are below your threshold in this thread, but for what it's worth, I'm well aware of what "truthiness" is and yes, I did use exactly it in the correct sense. If you actually want to see that I do, unfortunately, you'll have to dig past the idiot with mod points.
Well, I didn't really develop the entire so-called pseudo-intellectual explanation of why I used it that way. At the time, it really was more along the lines of, "See? CNN and MSNBC agree with my gut and say it's a word. If you go trying to look it up, well then, you clearly don't understand the concept of 'truthiness.'"
The so-called pseudo-intellectual explanation of it was for the benefit of those who think that I don't get it. In the submission, though, I really couldn't think of any other way to express it without, well, overanalyzing it.
It was a good one, wasn't it? Definitely one of my better ones. I wish I had thought to save the HTML code so that I could post it as a standard response to people saying that someone has used ironic in the wrong sense when in fact they didn't. (Which, I've observed, has become just as common or more common on Slashdot as people actually misusing the word ironic.) Oh well!
"Truthiness" is the act of setting forth a feel-good falsehood in the place of real truth.
Kind of like, oh, say, "truthiness" being a real word?;-)
And I was using it right there, too. Maybe it was misinterpreted, but I meant that in our gut we want it to be a real word, and the media outlets are kind of playing it up for such, but for right now and probably in the foreseeable future, it still isn't.
In my brain, I honestly don't think that "truthiness" will be added to a dictionary any time soon. Maybe I'm wrong and it actually will be. But for now, the word remains just something we feel sounds like it should be in there, and undoubtedly, some people will use it in everyday speech as a real word.
That's not truth from the gut, that's truth from evidence.
Not really, I was actually shooting for a little conspicuous sarcasm there. The idea that truthiness is a so-called "legitimate" word is false, plain and simple. Evidence otherwise would be that it's in a standard dictionary, which for now, it's still not.
There are a lot of people who think that CNN and MSNBC and other major media outlets are the Truth (or even "Fair and Balanced," right?). And I'm not saying they're 100% fake. But the gist of what I was getting at is that it's possible that with enough publicity, people may think that "truthiness" is a real word, when in fact it's not. If enough people eventually use it so that Websters and other dictionaries do consider it a legitimate word, then the idea moves out of the realm of truthiness and into the realm of truth from evidence. But for now, it's clearly still in the former, not the latter.
You need to look up the definition. Or at least watch the FV that I linked to.
Colbert says:
That brings us to tonight's word: Truthiness. Now, I'm sure that some of the word police, the "wordinistas" over at Websters are going to say, "Hey, that's not a word." Well, anybody who knows me knows that I'm no fan of dictionaries or reference books. They're elitist.
The fact that the "wordinistas" over at Websters have made "Truthiness" their 2006 Word of the Year is about as ironic as it gets.
Even if you don't watch the FV that I linked to, my own submission says:
In spite of Colbert's ironic dismissal of dictionaries and other reference books, will Colbert's coined word actually be added to those books?
sigh I hate explaining basic things such as what irony is, but since you didn't get it, allow me to direct you to one of those noisome reference books, Webster's online dictionary. Please pay particular notice to definition 3a: "incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result."
It is possible (i.e. the "actual result of a sequence of events" is) that Colbert's word "truthiness" may eventually end up in one or more dictionaries. Colbert's satire (do I have to explain what that is, too?) dismisses books such as dictionaries precisely because they don't include words like "truthiness" (i.e. "the normal or expected result").
Feel free to point out exactly why you don't think that's ironic. Surely you don't think that conspicuous sarcasm is the only type of irony that exists?
If anyone who actually has a brain wants to mod the parent down and undo to the work of your unfortunate Slashdot peers who had mod points but no clue, it would probably be worthwhile. Meanwhile, I find your comment a little ironic as well. And in case you missed that, too, it's because you're using a definition of irony that must obviously be derived from "truthiness" (i.e. the actual result) instead of the real definition of the word (i.e. the expected result) in your comment. Are you starting to understand?
I did the whole home theater setup in my house, and when deciding between HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, I find the choice pretty easy. I'm not really THAT into video games, but they're nice at times and I figure I'll buy a console that also plays one of the HD formats.
I don't mean to imply that it doesn't happen, just that it's unusual that being able to watch movies is still a very, very minor concern when people buy a console system. I honestly think that in a year or so, the people who will be watching high definition discs will be watching them on dedicated high definition disc players, not on their game consoles. (Again, there will be exceptions.) At that point, the PS3 won't really be relevant in people's decisions, it will boil down to two questions: 1) What are there more movies for, and 2) which one is cheaper?
I think that HD-DVD will have an edge in both, and as time goes on, the gap will open wider and wider to the point that it will lead the market.
shrugs... I could be wrong, only time will tell.
I see the hodge-podge XBox 360 + HD-DVD add-on available now, or I can wait for the slightly more future-proofed PS3 with Blu-Ray.
I think that the "hodge-podge" of the Xbox 360 is precisely why people will buy it instead. It's a lot easier for people to go invest $400 in a game console now and $300 in a high-def disc player later than it is for people to invest $600 up front in both.
Plus, here's something people don't talk about very much, but it's certainly a consideration with me. If my Microsoft HD-DVD player for the Xbox 360 screws up after my warranty is expired, I'm out $300 and I can't watch movies. If my Sony PS3 Blu-ray player screws up after my warranty is expired, I'm out $600 and I can't watch movies or play games. Personally, I find the possibility of the latter situation much more distressing.
I don't think they'll cut themselves out of the Chinese market, I think they'll continue to release movies in non-EVD formats under the rationale that they should all just buy DVD or HD-DVD players.
I see a likely scenario being that movies will be copied and distributed primarily either online or via pirate EVD in places like China, and using the same old DRM-laden formats here. The industry will continue to pay vast sums of money to try to have countries like China outlaw devices like EVD players and shut down online distribution of their movies. Ho hum, more of the same.
One thing that I'm damn sure of is that if a format won't support DRM, it won't be supported by media distribution companies.
My hope is that one of these days, media distribution companies are obsolete and we can order our stuff online directly via the studios that produce them.
Oh, and just to add insult to injury, I'm guessing that you're probably not aware that HD-DVD is being developed by the DVD Forum, the same folks who developed and continue to work with the plain ol' DVD format. If you want to compare comparable lists, you need to look at the DVD Forum's members.
I'd copy them all down in a display of immature one-upmanship, but I don't feel like sitting here and typing out the names of all 224 companies.
Still want to argue about which format has more support?
Now would you like to retract your obviously inaccurate statement?
No, I wouldn't. Nice try though, Propaganda Boy.
Unlike the companies on the Blu-ray page, the companies listed on the HD-DVD page is not a complete list of the companies that have ever remotely thought of having something to do with HD-DVD. It's a list of the major media companies that will be putting out HD-DVD material.
The Blu-ray page, on the other hand, is a list of anyone and everyone that's applied to be a member of the so-called "Blu-ray Consortium." This includes chip suppliers, manufacturers, media companies (including those who will be releasing HD-DVD and any Blu-ray versions of movies), PS3 game developers (duh), and so on. Hey, guess what? For a mere $3,000, even a wise-ass like you can be on their useless list! Basically all you've shown us is that there are a lot of companies that are hedging their bets until they can figure out which format will win the so-called "format war." Duh.
Of course, I suppose that you see the list of nine companies on the HD-DVD page and assume that, like the Blu-ray list, it's a list of anyone and everyone that's had anything remotely to do with HD-DVD. Since you don't seem to have picked this up from context, let me rephrase it so that even your tiny little brain can comprehend it:
Sony decided that it wants everyone using its proprietary format instead of the format that most of the other industry players out there that actually has meaningful input into the format and that actually has the power to convince consumers to buy products that use that format exclusively agreed to...
There. Hope that's more clear.
But hey, if you don't think that Blu-ray is D-O-A, then knock yourself out and buy your little Betamax play— er, I mean, Blu-ray player and the initial wave of movies that come out for it. Go ahead and keep telling us 20 years from now how Blu-ray was a technically superior format. Meanwhile, the rest of us will continue rolling our eyes at you and saying, "Whatever," and buying products that people actually use in the real world.
Well, here's how it was supposed to have happened.
HD-DVD becomes the new standard format for HD content. People will go out and buy HD-DVD players as either their old ones break, they grow up (i.e. graduate and get jobs, or get raises and have more disposable income), and the players come down in price. Don't worry, those fancy new HD-DVD players will still play your box set of Friends DVDs, it's all compatible, and everyone's happy.
As more and more people buy HD-DVD players, the studios start releasing more HD-DVD movies and television shows. They invest millions into advertising, and billions into getting their HD-DVD discs out there for everyone to buy. Maybe you do own the box set of Friends on DVD, but do you own the box set of Seinfeld? If you're going to buy it, and now you have the choice between HD-DVD and just plain old DVD, are you really going to just buy the plain old DVDs if you have an HD-DVD player? Nah, because the quality is better, and everyone (studios, manufacturers, and advertisers) agrees that HD-DVD is the way to go!
And so HD-DVD is propagated, and eventually, everyone is buying HD-DVD players and HD-DVD discs instead of the old DVD stuff.
But thanks to Sony, that's not what's going to happen.
No, Sony decided that it wants everyone using its proprietary format instead of the format that most of the other industry players out there agreed to, and now we have a so-called "format war." Now, people aren't going to buy HD-DVD players, because what if Blu-ray wins? Do I really want to be stuck with the modern-day equivalent of a Betamax player? People aren't going to buy Blu-ray players either for the same reason. Sure, people will have them with their PS3s, but without a clear winner in the market, studios aren't going to be investing a lot in releasing very many Blu-ray movies, and people aren't going to be buying many Blu-ray movies. And not to put too fine a point on it, these people are going to be using their PS3s primarily to play games, not watch movies.
As a result, it's likely that both formats are screwed, when one would have succeeded just fine.
I don't know anything about EVD, but if this is true, it means that movie studios most certainly won't be releasing EVD discs with their movies on it. In places like China where piracy is rampant, people won't care too much, but in other places like the U.S., I just don't see people going out and buying a special player (which, if EVD actually becomes popular, will probably be made illegal) just to watch illegal copies of movies and television shows.
If someone does try to sell illegal copies of movies and/or television shows here in the U.S., they'll be promptly sued and likely also arrested and thrown in jail.
I'm going out on a limb here, but maybe because it's not true?
Some of the early players didn't recognize or support region coding. That doesn't mean that the format is incapable of it. And trust me on this, it is unfortunately going to be with us for a long time to come.
Slashdot Mirror
I can solve this problem with one word:
Robocannibals.
Besides, do you thinks that HK-47 (instance 00000001a) would really be worse than... Nah, I won't go there. It's too early to get modded Flamebait yet today. I'll just let you insert the name of the politician you hate the most there, and leave it at thinking that it might be nice for our national policymakers to make decisions based on some kind of logical reasoning for a change.
I'm not so much worried about robots' legal rights in the future as I am my own legal rights. At the rate we're going, there won't be any "legal rights" left, and the point will be moot.
Still, I hope robots do have legal rights. That way, when I get old and feeble and have my consciousness transferred into my new robotic body, I'll still have 'em.
If they have the awareness to ask for legal rights, why shouldn't they have them? Have we learned nothing from Star Trek: The Next Generation?
You mean the article that keeps referring to those who believe that Stella Liebeck had merit as "the left" and "liberals"?
It sounds to me like the guy is more interested in pushing some kind of agenda than making an honest evaluation of the case based on its legal merits or lack thereof. Even if the guy is right, he's sure not helping his argument.
Also, it sounds to me like his main point is that the judge should have thrown the case out instead of letting it go to a jury trial. I'm sorry, but although sometimes juries can be stupid, I'd trust a jury much more than I'd trust a judge any day.
/had a judge once tell me, "You don't have a right to a jury trial" over a traffic offense, though it's clearly stated in the Georgia state constitution that I did
/had same judge tell me after finding me guilty, "You know you never had a chance, right?"
Not necessarily. What if I just moved into the area, and I don't have that many local friends? What if my friends are stupid, and I'd rather trust some sort of objective report? What if my friends are generally poor and don't have cell phones? What if my friends all work at the same place and their phones all come from a single provider, affording me no comparison? What if my friends all live far enough away that their cell outages aren't the same as mine? I can keep listing if you want me to, but the point is that in order to make an informed decision about something, we need information. Who are you to say what kind of information we should or shouldn't find more valuable?
Let's just say for a second that you 100% correct and that MSNBC is angry at being rejected their FOIA request by the FCC.
So? What difference does it make?
If MSNBC files a legitimate FOIA request (which they did), and the FCC rejects it for bogus reasons (which they did), it doesn't matter what MSNBC's motivations were or how they feel about it. It is wrong, and it needs to be fixed. Otherwise, we're setting the precedent of government denying FOIA requests for reasons that may have to do with more important things, like holding government accountable or protecting freedom.
I don't care if MSNBC wanted to use the report as toilet paper, it's publicly-funded non-national-security info that they have a right by law to get.
That's awful!
Still, for what it's worth, I hope the submitter isn't dealing with stuff this big and dangerous. I'm imagining him trying to set up the kind of stuff you get at your local fireworks shack so that it's timed when they go off instead of lighting it manually himself. Barring stupidity, inattentiveness, or really weird flukes such as what you've described, I would hope that messing around with them should be relatively safe.
In fact, since he'll presumably be standing far away when they're ignited, I'm almost suspecting that it would be even safer than trying to do it manually.
In either case, coolness or catastrophe, maybe we'll get to see the results on YouTube. ;-)
If this keeps up, .002 cents really will = $.002
(Sorry, but it had to be said...)
Funny, I was going to post the same response to the thread about midgets, whipped cream, and a tazer gun.
Devil's advocate here...
How was he killed? What there something mortally dangerous in what he was doing, or was it just some kind of wild fluke? I've heard of people being injured with fireworks, but I can honestly say this is the first time I've heard of anyone being killed.
Your story kind of reminds me of the stories I hear of kids who get hit in the chest by a baseball, a linebacker, or whatever, and collapse dead of a heart attack on the spot. Has it happened? Sure. Is it tragic? You bet. But is it a reason for no kid to ever play baseball or football again? No, it's not.
If the guy is willing to use his common sense and exercise a little extra care to avoid blowing himself or other people up or losing a few limbs here and there, I wouldn't suggest that he not try what he wants to do because one person once died from working with fireworks.
My devil's advocate reaction to this is, "not necessarily." If company X didn't have to spend a billion dollars to counteract company Y's $900 million advertising budget, they could use that money to help save consumers dollars. Or they could put it into R&D and engineering to actually make a better product instead of just telling us it's a better product.
Also, I (and a lot of other people) are more than willing to pay a premium for ad-less products. Does anyone remember the days way back when most cable channels didn't have ads? Now you have to pay the cable company for channels with ads, and the channels that don't have ads are very expensive. (Yet notice how they still have a lot of subscribers for that premium.)
I myself don't watch ads on television at all. Every show I want to watch, I either get via iTunes download for $2 a pop (or a season subscription), or by less scrupulous means that I don't want to go into if it's not available by any other means (wink, wink). I have a few small web sites I run for personal reasons, and I buy the hosting space at a reasonable non-free price so that I don't have to subject my visitors to a barrage of ads. I run Firefox with AdBlock so that I can avoid as many ads as possible while browsing the Internet.
I still run across ads now and then, as they're unavoidable in society. The point, though, is that I still spend plenty my share of disposable income, companies still make plenty of money off of me, but they have to do it by actually having products of decent quality that I want or need, not by yelling in both my ears constantly.
In other words, there is another way.
Personally, I think the best advertising any company can have is virtually free. It's from friends who have products and tell me about them. It's from reputable website reviews that describe up-and-coming technology and products. It's from companies' own websites that provide as much real information about products I'm interested in as I need to make an informed decision. All of these things are dirt cheap compared to the billions that companies spend on radio, television and web ads that I never see or hear. Go figure.
Amen.
Amen! I work in a building in downtown, which you would think would have pretty good coverage. We're literally almost right on top of the Georgia Tech campus (as in, the Tech dorms are around two blocks away), which I would think should have very good coverage. My company has a deal with Cingular so that everyone gets discounts on their phones. I kept Verizon because I spend a lot more time on the phone with my family and friends (which is free) than with my coworkers (which I suck up in the "peak minutes" I use each month).
Of course, the big difference is that they have to all walk outside to talk on the phone. I can pretty much talk on mine anywhere. More than once, someone has said, "Hey, how are you getting phone service in here?"
And yes, I know what you mean about the spotty coverage. When I do talk to one of my coworkers as they're moving around in the city, I just plan on getting disconnected. I even go so far as to sometimes tell them, "When you hit that dead spot coming up, call me back on the other side."
sigh
Bah, Slashdot stripped my cents mark off the end of the second .002. It should have said:
In spite of their mathematically challenged service reps, Verizon has always been a pretty good company for me. In Atlanta, the coverage is excellent and their prices and plans are fantastic.
I originally switched primarily because Verizon was one of a very, very few companies that refused to participate in and spoke out against the cell phone directory telemarketer's dream scheme a while back. It was pretty heavily covered by our consumer rights media guru here, Clark Howard (second entry). It also helps that most of my family is on Verizon and I can now call them for free.
And, for what it's worth, they did finally concede that $.002 is different from .002. :-)
Unless things change pretty dramatically, I'll probably stick with them for a long time to come.
Maybe, except that I'm still not 100% convinced that he or she is referring to the word "truthiness." Let me remind you of the OP's ambiguous statement:
The OP doesn't specify which word. There are three things that lead me to believe that he or she is referring to the word "ironic":
Go for it. I've got plenty of karma to burn, and frankly, there are some people that I'd consider it an honor to be modded down by. Don't be disappointed that you don't have mod points now, I'm a semi-frequent submitter and poster, so keep me on your foes list long enough, and you'll get your chance.
sigh And I see that someone with mod points doesn't know the meaning of "Troll" or "Redundant" also.
Go ahead and mod this one down too, I dare you. Because 1) it's not like this topic isn't pretty old and dead and it matters, 2) stunning displays of ignorance on Slashdot don't make me mad, they amuse me, and 3) as much as you love modding me down, I know that you can only do so up to five times max. Deep inside, I know that I'm doing the world good, because if you're busy modding my trivial posts down, it means that you're leaving other people's more interesting posts alone. So hey, have a ball with it! ;-)
For those of you with brains, I don't really care whether or not you read the posts that are below your threshold in this thread, but for what it's worth, I'm well aware of what "truthiness" is and yes, I did use exactly it in the correct sense. If you actually want to see that I do, unfortunately, you'll have to dig past the idiot with mod points.
Well, I didn't really develop the entire so-called pseudo-intellectual explanation of why I used it that way. At the time, it really was more along the lines of, "See? CNN and MSNBC agree with my gut and say it's a word. If you go trying to look it up, well then, you clearly don't understand the concept of 'truthiness.'"
The so-called pseudo-intellectual explanation of it was for the benefit of those who think that I don't get it. In the submission, though, I really couldn't think of any other way to express it without, well, overanalyzing it.
It was a good one, wasn't it? Definitely one of my better ones. I wish I had thought to save the HTML code so that I could post it as a standard response to people saying that someone has used ironic in the wrong sense when in fact they didn't. (Which, I've observed, has become just as common or more common on Slashdot as people actually misusing the word ironic.) Oh well!
Kind of like, oh, say, "truthiness" being a real word? ;-)
And I was using it right there, too. Maybe it was misinterpreted, but I meant that in our gut we want it to be a real word, and the media outlets are kind of playing it up for such, but for right now and probably in the foreseeable future, it still isn't.
In my brain, I honestly don't think that "truthiness" will be added to a dictionary any time soon. Maybe I'm wrong and it actually will be. But for now, the word remains just something we feel sounds like it should be in there, and undoubtedly, some people will use it in everyday speech as a real word.
Not really, I was actually shooting for a little conspicuous sarcasm there. The idea that truthiness is a so-called "legitimate" word is false, plain and simple. Evidence otherwise would be that it's in a standard dictionary, which for now, it's still not.
There are a lot of people who think that CNN and MSNBC and other major media outlets are the Truth (or even "Fair and Balanced," right?). And I'm not saying they're 100% fake. But the gist of what I was getting at is that it's possible that with enough publicity, people may think that "truthiness" is a real word, when in fact it's not. If enough people eventually use it so that Websters and other dictionaries do consider it a legitimate word, then the idea moves out of the realm of truthiness and into the realm of truth from evidence. But for now, it's clearly still in the former, not the latter.
You need to look up the definition. Or at least watch the FV that I linked to.
Colbert says:
The fact that the "wordinistas" over at Websters have made "Truthiness" their 2006 Word of the Year is about as ironic as it gets.
Even if you don't watch the FV that I linked to, my own submission says:
sigh I hate explaining basic things such as what irony is, but since you didn't get it, allow me to direct you to one of those noisome reference books, Webster's online dictionary. Please pay particular notice to definition 3a: "incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result."
It is possible (i.e. the "actual result of a sequence of events" is) that Colbert's word "truthiness" may eventually end up in one or more dictionaries. Colbert's satire (do I have to explain what that is, too?) dismisses books such as dictionaries precisely because they don't include words like "truthiness" (i.e. "the normal or expected result").
Feel free to point out exactly why you don't think that's ironic. Surely you don't think that conspicuous sarcasm is the only type of irony that exists?
If anyone who actually has a brain wants to mod the parent down and undo to the work of your unfortunate Slashdot peers who had mod points but no clue, it would probably be worthwhile. Meanwhile, I find your comment a little ironic as well. And in case you missed that, too, it's because you're using a definition of irony that must obviously be derived from "truthiness" (i.e. the actual result) instead of the real definition of the word (i.e. the expected result) in your comment. Are you starting to understand?
I don't mean to imply that it doesn't happen, just that it's unusual that being able to watch movies is still a very, very minor concern when people buy a console system. I honestly think that in a year or so, the people who will be watching high definition discs will be watching them on dedicated high definition disc players, not on their game consoles. (Again, there will be exceptions.) At that point, the PS3 won't really be relevant in people's decisions, it will boil down to two questions: 1) What are there more movies for, and 2) which one is cheaper?
I think that HD-DVD will have an edge in both, and as time goes on, the gap will open wider and wider to the point that it will lead the market.
shrugs... I could be wrong, only time will tell.
I think that the "hodge-podge" of the Xbox 360 is precisely why people will buy it instead. It's a lot easier for people to go invest $400 in a game console now and $300 in a high-def disc player later than it is for people to invest $600 up front in both.
Plus, here's something people don't talk about very much, but it's certainly a consideration with me. If my Microsoft HD-DVD player for the Xbox 360 screws up after my warranty is expired, I'm out $300 and I can't watch movies. If my Sony PS3 Blu-ray player screws up after my warranty is expired, I'm out $600 and I can't watch movies or play games. Personally, I find the possibility of the latter situation much more distressing.
Yeah, you pretty much answered your own question.
I don't think they'll cut themselves out of the Chinese market, I think they'll continue to release movies in non-EVD formats under the rationale that they should all just buy DVD or HD-DVD players.
I see a likely scenario being that movies will be copied and distributed primarily either online or via pirate EVD in places like China, and using the same old DRM-laden formats here. The industry will continue to pay vast sums of money to try to have countries like China outlaw devices like EVD players and shut down online distribution of their movies. Ho hum, more of the same.
One thing that I'm damn sure of is that if a format won't support DRM, it won't be supported by media distribution companies.
My hope is that one of these days, media distribution companies are obsolete and we can order our stuff online directly via the studios that produce them.
Oh, and just to add insult to injury, I'm guessing that you're probably not aware that HD-DVD is being developed by the DVD Forum, the same folks who developed and continue to work with the plain ol' DVD format. If you want to compare comparable lists, you need to look at the DVD Forum's members.
I'd copy them all down in a display of immature one-upmanship, but I don't feel like sitting here and typing out the names of all 224 companies.
Still want to argue about which format has more support?
No, I wouldn't. Nice try though, Propaganda Boy.
Unlike the companies on the Blu-ray page, the companies listed on the HD-DVD page is not a complete list of the companies that have ever remotely thought of having something to do with HD-DVD. It's a list of the major media companies that will be putting out HD-DVD material.
The Blu-ray page, on the other hand, is a list of anyone and everyone that's applied to be a member of the so-called "Blu-ray Consortium." This includes chip suppliers, manufacturers, media companies (including those who will be releasing HD-DVD and any Blu-ray versions of movies), PS3 game developers (duh), and so on. Hey, guess what? For a mere $3,000, even a wise-ass like you can be on their useless list! Basically all you've shown us is that there are a lot of companies that are hedging their bets until they can figure out which format will win the so-called "format war." Duh.
Of course, I suppose that you see the list of nine companies on the HD-DVD page and assume that, like the Blu-ray list, it's a list of anyone and everyone that's had anything remotely to do with HD-DVD. Since you don't seem to have picked this up from context, let me rephrase it so that even your tiny little brain can comprehend it:
There. Hope that's more clear.
But hey, if you don't think that Blu-ray is D-O-A, then knock yourself out and buy your little Betamax play— er, I mean, Blu-ray player and the initial wave of movies that come out for it. Go ahead and keep telling us 20 years from now how Blu-ray was a technically superior format. Meanwhile, the rest of us will continue rolling our eyes at you and saying, "Whatever," and buying products that people actually use in the real world.
Well, here's how it was supposed to have happened.
HD-DVD becomes the new standard format for HD content. People will go out and buy HD-DVD players as either their old ones break, they grow up (i.e. graduate and get jobs, or get raises and have more disposable income), and the players come down in price. Don't worry, those fancy new HD-DVD players will still play your box set of Friends DVDs, it's all compatible, and everyone's happy.
As more and more people buy HD-DVD players, the studios start releasing more HD-DVD movies and television shows. They invest millions into advertising, and billions into getting their HD-DVD discs out there for everyone to buy. Maybe you do own the box set of Friends on DVD, but do you own the box set of Seinfeld? If you're going to buy it, and now you have the choice between HD-DVD and just plain old DVD, are you really going to just buy the plain old DVDs if you have an HD-DVD player? Nah, because the quality is better, and everyone (studios, manufacturers, and advertisers) agrees that HD-DVD is the way to go!
And so HD-DVD is propagated, and eventually, everyone is buying HD-DVD players and HD-DVD discs instead of the old DVD stuff.
But thanks to Sony, that's not what's going to happen.
No, Sony decided that it wants everyone using its proprietary format instead of the format that most of the other industry players out there agreed to, and now we have a so-called "format war." Now, people aren't going to buy HD-DVD players, because what if Blu-ray wins? Do I really want to be stuck with the modern-day equivalent of a Betamax player? People aren't going to buy Blu-ray players either for the same reason. Sure, people will have them with their PS3s, but without a clear winner in the market, studios aren't going to be investing a lot in releasing very many Blu-ray movies, and people aren't going to be buying many Blu-ray movies. And not to put too fine a point on it, these people are going to be using their PS3s primarily to play games, not watch movies.
As a result, it's likely that both formats are screwed, when one would have succeeded just fine.
Thanks, Sony.
I don't know anything about EVD, but if this is true, it means that movie studios most certainly won't be releasing EVD discs with their movies on it. In places like China where piracy is rampant, people won't care too much, but in other places like the U.S., I just don't see people going out and buying a special player (which, if EVD actually becomes popular, will probably be made illegal) just to watch illegal copies of movies and television shows.
If someone does try to sell illegal copies of movies and/or television shows here in the U.S., they'll be promptly sued and likely also arrested and thrown in jail.
I'm going out on a limb here, but maybe because it's not true?
Some of the early players didn't recognize or support region coding. That doesn't mean that the format is incapable of it. And trust me on this, it is unfortunately going to be with us for a long time to come.