You obviously didn't read the entire second paragraph of my post. I'm not saying they are a threat (barring radicals, of course). I'm saying that they can conceivably be (Scientology as a whole seems pretty darned dangerous at times), and that if they were, then society as a whole would be justified in not letting them "be happy" with their beliefs. You asked "In case your wondering, the point is, if it makes them happy, they who are you to stop them?", which is a pretty absolute question that throws all notions of context out the window. Only thing I answered was a credible scenario under which I would be justified to stop them, I didn't say it was real or even likely.
Because, of course, AIDS is only spread through sex, so neither partner can't contract an HIV infection from, say, contaminated blood transfusions or infected medical equipment. Either way, that's irrelevant, since 3rd world countries have the best medical hygiene in the world, not to mention that at worst it'd stay within the couple, because mother to child infection never happens.
In case your wondering, the point is, if it makes them happy, they who are you to stop them?
If people on drugs are happy, why should we stop them? Ah yes, because of the behaviours they exhibit besides being happy and that are both anti-social and consequential of their drug use. There's also a public health thing involved, but the day that aspect is relevant to a discussion about theology, things will be bad indeed...:)
Not to say, of course, that all religious people (or a significant amount of them for that matter) are anti-social individuals whose behaviour is derived from their faith, but that would be, as a concept, a good enough reason to give "me" (as in, society at large) the moral authority to "stop them" (which is what you asked).
The issue is not rejection: It's supression.
Just as The Church was guilty of censorship when it was in power, now we having these scientists refusing to listen to another side of the issue.
Risking coming across as a flame, the point here is that their notion of suppression was "agree with us or we'll suppress your life", a position Pope Benedict has (reportedly) implicitly defended, and which is the cause of the "we really don't you preaching your religion in our campus" reaction (which, let's face it, is a fair bit milder take on the whole suppression thing).
That was a ballpark figure. When I decided to answer your post, I looked up actual values. Mainstream music CDs cover the 15-20 euro range, with double CDs going over that figure (and, obviously, bargain bin and promotions going way below). Theatre tickets typically range 12-20 euros as well, with concerts being slightly more expensive, usually spanning from 20 to 25 euro, with the occasional dip into the low 30s. Obviously, big operas and very VERY big concerts are exceptions (there's a Mark Knopfler concert scheduled, with tickets ranging 25-60 euros). But, at worst, a good concert in reasonable, if not extravagant, places costs you two CDs' worth.
when there are plenty of movies that would benefit more (and thus create more profit) from being HD
Because you just made one logic step too many. It's the commercial (often crappy) stuff that sells the most, period. So if you put that stuff out on high definition, the masses will seriously consider going hidef for those highly commercial products. Sure, the nuanced colours and amazing textures of films like Hero or Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon would be amongst my first picks for high definition. But let's face face it: Hitch probably sells more in hidef than those two films combined, even if it is a bog standard romantic comedy sort of film, so it makes more business sense to push that one to resellers, while( eventually) using the others to promote the format.
I'd go as far as to state that plastic art in general is almost entirely unaffected by piracy, like actual shows of performance arts.
I haven't bought a CD in ages, getting most music I listen to off the intertubes in one manner or another. Yet, in the last month I went to a presentation of Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (the musical, not the film. Though I plan on watching that too), and today I attended the world-wide second presentation of Terry Jones's (of Monty Python fame) Evil Machines (a musical). Only missed the première because I had my birthday party last night. I also have tickets for another play in a few weeks' time.
You might claim I'm hurting the music industry for not buying their wares, and that poor old artists are starving (incidentally, my girlfriend is a professional classical musician), yet I'm willing to pay about as much for a ticket for a one-night show as would be charged for a CD I'd keep for aeons (have quite a few CDs around going on 15 years old, not counting my parents').
When a download off the internet can actually lean towards me, personally, and threaten me with shiny silver razors (the guy who played Sweeney was creepy, damn him), piracy might be able to "replace" the value of a live performance. Until then, the music industry is just crying about not wanting to invest in the real deal and the pale imitation being upstaged by a more practical pale imitation. In the meanwhile, plastic arts happily plod along just fine because nobody in their right mind would compare looking at a painting proper with seeing a photograph (no matter how high resolution) of it. Or a statue (though I have a large set of photos of a visit to a sand sculpture exhibit I saw this summer -- for which I gladly paid entrance fees).
I believe that even that sense of the word translates into the opposite of reduction, with oxygen being a *very* powerful oxidizing agent (hence the term "oxidizing" as opposed to "reducing").
You are aware that you'll have some trouble finding a webcam that can feed that HDTV a high resolution signal, right? (not to mention actually streaming it in real time at a decent frame rate)
Don't forget, it's not just the concept that's patented, but the implementation
My understanding of patents was that, for the most part, it was actually the implementation, not the concept, that mattered (though that has been seriously "expanded" by now...)
Wouldn't any identifiable watermark lead to someone who decidedly leaked the file in some manner though? Not necessarily voluntarily or knowingly, but definitely a leak. If you have 5 identifiable watermarks in one film, you don't have noise, you have 5 different suspects who probably acted in collusion.
No they can't, because OpenGL is an independent thing, and Direct3D is "bundled" with a big game-making package. That's the whole point. Direct3D is not superior per se. But the integrated environment is.
It is a foolish generalization, and decent-educated people ought to reject it. It is "generalized" by ignorant people (like the guy in the article), who don't even realize, that the dec-prefix in this word is the same as in, for example, decade. And the same prefix as DECent, DECadent, DECaffeinated (ooops, the prefix is actualy de-), DECant, DECal, right? Er... except none of those use the dec- prefix, most (but not all) having de- prefix for negation -- which is actually not that far-fetched a misinterpretation of the etymology of 'decimate'. So get off your high horse.
AAC is optimised for (and probably sounds better when used with) "light" music, whereas mp3 is optimised for classical music, being a refinement/further compressed version of a standard used for digital broadcast (MPEG-1 Layer 2 is used for DVB and DAB). In particular, AAC contains time-domain compression, whereas mp3 does no such thing to preserve impulse-like sounds (such as glockenspiels) better. So... no, AAC doesn't sound much better than MP3, period. It sounds better in certain cases, and worse in others.
Of course arm movement alone is not the same a full body movement. But I would prefer that the kids at least get some exercise. I wonder if it would have been different if they had tested the boxing game as it is much more physically involved.
Problem is, 60 calories is nothing, insofar as (serious) physical activity is concerned. SO, instead of letting the kid play with his 360 for an hour, and then kick him outside to run and jump and cavort around in general for another hour, you let the kid stay inside the two whole hours playing with his wii (no pun intended), because "it's better than nothing". When, in fact, it was barely more than nothing. The problem, of course, is not with the wii itself. It's the mentality.
It wasn't a joke. Alcohol *is* a depressant of the central nervous system. Bu,t given the right dosage, it generates euphoria (I think everybody here has seen an euphoric drunkard at least once).
Bah, disregard that completely. For some odd reason or another I brain-cramped and figured that people only use "perfect" in the "so good, nothing of the sort could beat it" or "ideal" senses of the word, whereas the less absolute statements of quality it can mean had fallen into disuse (like "a good fit" -- "this computer is perfect for your needs").
Slashdot Mirror
You obviously didn't read the entire second paragraph of my post. I'm not saying they are a threat (barring radicals, of course). I'm saying that they can conceivably be (Scientology as a whole seems pretty darned dangerous at times), and that if they were, then society as a whole would be justified in not letting them "be happy" with their beliefs. You asked "In case your wondering, the point is, if it makes them happy, they who are you to stop them?", which is a pretty absolute question that throws all notions of context out the window. Only thing I answered was a credible scenario under which I would be justified to stop them, I didn't say it was real or even likely.
no, that it would prevent transmission within the couple after one was infected in such a way.
I'm afraid you didn't quite grasp the difference between "demand" and "request". Demand kind of implies that the "if someone agrees" step out of it.
Not if/when they become a danger to the fabric of the tolerant society itself.
Sadly, not quite enough people see that faith and tolerance are orthogonal.
Because, of course, AIDS is only spread through sex, so neither partner can't contract an HIV infection from, say, contaminated blood transfusions or infected medical equipment. Either way, that's irrelevant, since 3rd world countries have the best medical hygiene in the world, not to mention that at worst it'd stay within the couple, because mother to child infection never happens.
Oh... wait...
If people on drugs are happy, why should we stop them? Ah yes, because of the behaviours they exhibit besides being happy and that are both anti-social and consequential of their drug use. There's also a public health thing involved, but the day that aspect is relevant to a discussion about theology, things will be bad indeed... :)
Not to say, of course, that all religious people (or a significant amount of them for that matter) are anti-social individuals whose behaviour is derived from their faith, but that would be, as a concept, a good enough reason to give "me" (as in, society at large) the moral authority to "stop them" (which is what you asked).
Risking coming across as a flame, the point here is that their notion of suppression was "agree with us or we'll suppress your life", a position Pope Benedict has (reportedly) implicitly defended, and which is the cause of the "we really don't you preaching your religion in our campus" reaction (which, let's face it, is a fair bit milder take on the whole suppression thing).
sshhhhhhh, don't get in the way of convenient spin (even if 4k pages is, under any metric, a stupidly large amount of data for a complaint)
Or... a Predator! *ducks*
That was a ballpark figure. When I decided to answer your post, I looked up actual values. Mainstream music CDs cover the 15-20 euro range, with double CDs going over that figure (and, obviously, bargain bin and promotions going way below). Theatre tickets typically range 12-20 euros as well, with concerts being slightly more expensive, usually spanning from 20 to 25 euro, with the occasional dip into the low 30s. Obviously, big operas and very VERY big concerts are exceptions (there's a Mark Knopfler concert scheduled, with tickets ranging 25-60 euros). But, at worst, a good concert in reasonable, if not extravagant, places costs you two CDs' worth.
It's not that it isn't anything, it's just that I don't think that a CD is worth the price on the tag.
Because you just made one logic step too many. It's the commercial (often crappy) stuff that sells the most, period. So if you put that stuff out on high definition, the masses will seriously consider going hidef for those highly commercial products. Sure, the nuanced colours and amazing textures of films like Hero or Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon would be amongst my first picks for high definition. But let's face face it: Hitch probably sells more in hidef than those two films combined, even if it is a bog standard romantic comedy sort of film, so it makes more business sense to push that one to resellers, while( eventually) using the others to promote the format.
I'd go as far as to state that plastic art in general is almost entirely unaffected by piracy, like actual shows of performance arts.
I haven't bought a CD in ages, getting most music I listen to off the intertubes in one manner or another. Yet, in the last month I went to a presentation of Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (the musical, not the film. Though I plan on watching that too), and today I attended the world-wide second presentation of Terry Jones's (of Monty Python fame) Evil Machines (a musical). Only missed the première because I had my birthday party last night. I also have tickets for another play in a few weeks' time.
You might claim I'm hurting the music industry for not buying their wares, and that poor old artists are starving (incidentally, my girlfriend is a professional classical musician), yet I'm willing to pay about as much for a ticket for a one-night show as would be charged for a CD I'd keep for aeons (have quite a few CDs around going on 15 years old, not counting my parents').
When a download off the internet can actually lean towards me, personally, and threaten me with shiny silver razors (the guy who played Sweeney was creepy, damn him), piracy might be able to "replace" the value of a live performance. Until then, the music industry is just crying about not wanting to invest in the real deal and the pale imitation being upstaged by a more practical pale imitation. In the meanwhile, plastic arts happily plod along just fine because nobody in their right mind would compare looking at a painting proper with seeing a photograph (no matter how high resolution) of it. Or a statue (though I have a large set of photos of a visit to a sand sculpture exhibit I saw this summer -- for which I gladly paid entrance fees).
I believe that even that sense of the word translates into the opposite of reduction, with oxygen being a *very* powerful oxidizing agent (hence the term "oxidizing" as opposed to "reducing").
You are aware that you'll have some trouble finding a webcam that can feed that HDTV a high resolution signal, right? (not to mention actually streaming it in real time at a decent frame rate)
My understanding of patents was that, for the most part, it was actually the implementation, not the concept, that mattered (though that has been seriously "expanded" by now...)
Wouldn't any identifiable watermark lead to someone who decidedly leaked the file in some manner though? Not necessarily voluntarily or knowingly, but definitely a leak. If you have 5 identifiable watermarks in one film, you don't have noise, you have 5 different suspects who probably acted in collusion.
No they can't, because OpenGL is an independent thing, and Direct3D is "bundled" with a big game-making package. That's the whole point. Direct3D is not superior per se. But the integrated environment is.
AAC is optimised for (and probably sounds better when used with) "light" music, whereas mp3 is optimised for classical music, being a refinement/further compressed version of a standard used for digital broadcast (MPEG-1 Layer 2 is used for DVB and DAB). In particular, AAC contains time-domain compression, whereas mp3 does no such thing to preserve impulse-like sounds (such as glockenspiels) better. So... no, AAC doesn't sound much better than MP3, period. It sounds better in certain cases, and worse in others.
Problem is, 60 calories is nothing, insofar as (serious) physical activity is concerned. SO, instead of letting the kid play with his 360 for an hour, and then kick him outside to run and jump and cavort around in general for another hour, you let the kid stay inside the two whole hours playing with his wii (no pun intended), because "it's better than nothing". When, in fact, it was barely more than nothing. The problem, of course, is not with the wii itself. It's the mentality.
.It wasn't a joke. Alcohol *is* a depressant of the central nervous system. Bu,t given the right dosage, it generates euphoria (I think everybody here has seen an euphoric drunkard at least once).
The canonical example is of course good old alcohol.
Bah, disregard that completely. For some odd reason or another I brain-cramped and figured that people only use "perfect" in the "so good, nothing of the sort could beat it" or "ideal" senses of the word, whereas the less absolute statements of quality it can mean had fallen into disuse (like "a good fit" -- "this computer is perfect for your needs").
Here's some interesting read on the concept of perfection, though./p