Men are good at certain things, Women are good at certain things. Regardless of "Equal Oppurtunities" etc. Men and Women are fundamentally different, see that's why there are different words for them.:P
Come now. Let's not get caught up in "Well, this is just the way things are, and there's no reason to change" nonsense. According to your argument, the lack of women doctors and CEOs in the 1950s was because men and women are 'inherently different', right? Except that there actually was systematic oppression of women in place to prevent them from succeeding in high-paying professions.
It may be true that, in general, men are more likely than women to write software. That doesn't mean that the way things are *now* is a perfect representation of how likely women are compared to men. When you grow up believing that only nerdy, quirky women are involved in math and science (as they are often portrayed in movies, etc.) and you want to fit in, you'll avoid those fields even if you really *would* be good at math or science. Likewise, as a male growing up seeing stereotypes of male hairdressers as gay, it's easy to write off being a hairdresser to avoid being typecast as gay.
Are men and women different? Sure. Men have penises and testicles, and women have vaginas. They're *generally* hormonally different, and *generally* have tendencies toward certain things. That doesn't mean it's useless to examine what factors cause those tendencies, or that it's a good thing that we have self-reinforcing gender stereotypes. Examine behavior rationally - fuck this homebrew "common sense" unscientific bullshit.
"I think it's disingenuous to say that GTA is also a veiled criticism of our society. It's more like Miami Vice: all glorification and glamorization. At least on Miami Vice, the main character was a good guy (if a flawed one).
GTA isn't a great work of art. Don't pretend that it is."
Have you even played San Andreas? It's a beautifully crafted experience, the core storyline focuses on the *problem* that too many people are mindlessly killing, and the acting is better than in most movies I've seen in the past four years.
Just because you don't see the subtle criticism of popular culture in the GTA series doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Lots of people are probably incapable of seeing the irony in A Clockwork Orange, Grendel, or most of the post-modern movement in literature - that doesn't mean such books should be banned.
Where did this attitude that "university bandwidth should be used for academic purposes only" come from? That argument applies to public schools because students attend a free (excluding their parents' taxes) school at which bandwidth is paid for by the institution or taxpayers specifically for academic uses.
Students attending a university (especially a private university) are paying IN THEIR TUITION to have access to the network. They don't have an option to refuse paying for it if they want unrestricted access. If I'm paying my money for access to the internet through the commodity link, I had damn well better have unfettered access.
My school has instituted bandwidth caps - a small one for wireless access to avoid preventing others from using the same access point, and a large one for the wired connection to avoid excessive P2P use. I have unfettered access to the Internet given that I don't make it more difficult for others to equally access the same resource and as long as I don't cost a ridiculous amount of money in bandwidth, which I think is perfectly fair. Public schools that restrict are somewhat justified since they use tax money, but private universities should never run a restrictive firewall or throttle ports.
I had no idea the knee-jerk on slashdot was THIS overwhelming. So many people start screaming about personal use, and others scream back about artists and get modded down, and nobody has anything useful to say.
DRM is a form of technology. It is not necessarily poorly done, overly restrictive metadata. It is simply a method by which ownership and rights can be managed digitally.
One form of DRM might be paying a company to give you universal access to your data with authentication. Another might be having the right to have unlimited personal copies of a song that you have paid for the right to listen to. Another is the crippling hardware and software restriction imposed by current DRM-ed music files. They are not all the same thing, and it's stupid to reject any form of DRM because you like to share music with all your friends.
Basic economics dictate that EVERYONE would, at some point, accept DRM given an appropriate price point and enough capability for fair use. EVERYONE. So why not actually think about what benefits would be compelling enough to accept DRM? That was the point of this post, I think...
The problem with mp3 and ogg is not that they are open formats - it's not that "the man" is coming down on you and trying to proliferate Microsoft technology. The problem is that because they are digital formats, they allow for *unlimited* duplication and spreading. If one person buys a song without DRM, that person can send copies of that song millions and millions of time with relatively little effort. That's not a good thing - artists need to make up the costs of producing the song and hopefully make some money to eat food.
The real problem right now is the way the industry is structured, and it's stupid to blame DRM for the record industry. Artists get a maximum of ten percent of album sales (and that's not very likely) and the other ninety+ cents drives up the cost of the product until it's just plain stupid.
So what do we need out of DRM in order to accept it?
-*Limited* transferability so that it is possible to easily share music with friends, but not to share with everyone on the Internet -First-sale rights so it is possible to sell the authorization to listen to a song to someone else as used -Unlimited transferability to other devices, modes of data transportation, and formats for painless use in any situation -Unlimited access to a song when the rights are owned, regardless of location, so that if I am in another country I can get on a computer and listen to my collection if I want to -A low enough price point to justify the slight limitations imposed by the DRM and ensure that it is always easier to purchase the song than to download it for free
This last point is crucial, and is being attacked by the industry stupidly. Should we drive up the cost of filesharing by pursuing bullshit litigation and circumventing due process of law, or drive down the prices so it's easier to go to XYZ online music store and buy a song than it is to get on i2hub or eDonkey and try to download it? I know, let's give our consumers a big "fuck you!" and force through bullshit legislation to restrict fair use! Hooray!
But seriously, don't be so stupid as to say that DRM is always evil. The current forms of DRM are poorly done and are overly restrictive, making them less appealing than simply using filesharing to infringe on copyrights. But with the right price point, very slight restrictions, and the potential for global scalability of owned rights to listen to songs with more ease and enjoyment than the current system provides, absolutely everyone would prefer to pay and receive a fantastic service than not pay and not receive the benefits of a well-done digital rights setup.
A five or six year old girl or boy using an unrestricted Internet connection without parental supervision is the fault of bad parenting. It's not that rights are being invaded - it's just bad to set a precedent that the government should restrict the free market in order to do the job of parents.
I mean, what's next? Some sort of organization to filter what can and can't be said on television?
I hate to be a douche and use multiple punctuation marks, but I can't help it. The PSP is a better value... but it lasts for three hours of gameplay. How does that work, exactly? I use portable gaming systems when waiting in lines, bored between classes, and when I'm relaxing and don't feel like going downstairs to the big TV. The only time the PSP is useful is in the latter situation.
If I have an hour to wait between classes, I can play my PSP... but then if I want to play all afternoon while waiting for an evening event, I'm screwed! The last time I took my DS out I was waiting five hours for a stereo installation. I hadn't charged the battery the night before, but I had no problem sitting and playing Wario Ware for the entire time. The PSP would be dead long before I could leave, especially if I had previously used it to listen to MP3s or watch movies.
Why would I use a handheld device that has to be plugged into the wall for extended use?
And then he argues that the PSP has more compelling games, ignoring the massive library of fantastic GBA games available to anyone with a DS. GBA games look ten times better on a DS than on a GBA SP because of the properly backlit screens.
But it's a better value to have a system that's not functionally portable, has a limited selection of slow ports of old PS2 games, has useless MP3 functionality, and plays videos for a few hours than to have a system with hundreds of older games and at least eight hours of battery life. Hmm.
I'm no Nintendo fanboy, but I'd like a portable system to actually be portable. This is like saying "Alienware desktop replacement laptops are much better than tablet PCs" - it's true in a certain context, but based upon arbitrary measures of what makes something a superior product. I don't want to lug a ten pound laptop with ten minutes of battery life around for my portable computing needs, and I don't want to lug a fragile disc-based system with three hours of battery life for my portable gaming needs.
I assume that when you say you're against "all drug use, including marijuana" you're also against alcohol and tobacco, which are completely legal for adults over 21 and 18 (respectively) to buy. Because believing that alcohol should be legal and marijuana should not is an entirely indefensible position. The argument is something like "Alcohol is good, even though it can poison and kill you... but weed is bad, even though you cannot overdose on it. I believe EVERYTHING my government tells me! Reefer madness is scary!"
Yes, yes, let's mod up everyone who's bitching about how sad they are that they don't know who mc chris is. That's very cool.
Wait a second - you fuckers clicked on this link! "Waaah, I'm really upset that this article is on slashdot, even though read the headline, knew that I had no idea what the article was about, and chose to spend time reading it anyway. My life is so hard."
I don't know who the fuck mc chris is, but I'm not going to complain that I don't understand what he's talking about after I made the CHOICE to read the article and scan the comments. Jesus. Whining like this is the reason the FCC exists.
You may be treated like that in the south, but we're treated like that everywhere else!
Really? Interesting. I didn't realize that me and the other fifteen atheists in the United States were making it so hard on you hundred million or so religious folks. We'll try harder not to use our massive majority to oppress you.
I have no issue watching documentaries about other religions, or lack thereof (though, of course, it raises an interesting view..if you lack a religion..doesn't that become your religion? If you refuse to believe or acknowledge God, aren't you following a belief system?)
Wow, nice. You managed to come up with a really original argument that no atheist has ever rebutted. Please feel free to read more about atheism before you start redefining it on your own terms.
You complain about people acting that way, while you yourself seem to feel free to bash the other side in the manner you just mentioned offended you!
Erm... I thought we were complaining about religious wackos who think that evolution is evil and wrong influencing stupid businesses to avoid showing films that might offend their fairytale worldview, but I guess you're right, we're just 'bashing' religion with no justification. I mean, the destruction of science is no reason to complain, right?
Why is it that people insist on categorizing all fundamentalists as being the same? I am a fundamentalist Bible-believing Christian, but that doesn't mean that I checked my intelligence at the door.
I would offer that maybe people categorize all fundamentalists as being the same because the word "fundamentalism" means:
A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism (Dictionary.com)
So it's easy to think that fundamentalists have reduced their beliefs to the fundamental tenets of their religion. It'd also be reasonable to assume that fundamentalists are often intolerant of other views. Maybe you should stop calling yourself a fundamentalist now that you know the definition, eh?
Me: Haha, I'm going to make a joke about badly colored movies.
Everyone Else: You're a movie snob! Colorized movies is t3h r0x0rz!
Next time, I'll be sure to include a/sarcasm tag so it's more evident that I'm not really making a comment on the article at all.
Now it's even easier for corporations re-releasing films to completely destroy the original beauty of a film by adding unnatural and unnecessary color!
Coming soon, new dubbing techniques will allow easy substitution of the original actors' voices and dialogue with trite teen-angst to appeal to younger generations.
It's funny how easy it is to remember that correlation is not the same as causality and still forget that a mean score is not necessarily a median score.
It is not necessarily true that half of the population has an IQ below 100. The average (or mean) IQ is 100, but it could be the case that there is a high concentration of people who have 100-130 IQs and then a small number of outliers with IQs under 20. That's not a likely cases, but it's as important to remember the difference between mean and median measures as it is to remember the difference between correlated and causal conclusions.
1) MP3 certainly is a standard, so I don't see how your arguments about Ogg/AAC/WMA/MP3Pro are really relevant. Sure, it's nice that I can listen to a 128kbps ogg without vomiting, but if I can't play it in my car stereo or on a CD MP3 player, I don't want it. How can you say "MP3 is becoming a standard" and then turn around and say "Well, with new formats that aren't standard, audio quality is adequate"? That doesn't make any sense!
2) I won't trust you, because "it's proven time and time again" is a bullshit phrase when someone can't find a relevant source to back up their claims.
Just because it's difficult to distinguish between two bitrates on something you've never heard before doesn't mean that one is as good as another. Have you ever tried listening to musically complex metal (e.g. System of a Down) at 128kbps? It's painful! The issue is more often the codec used than the bitrate, but a 128 still sounds like shit compared to a 192 in a lot of cases. I don't mean the types of things that are present in 24 bit recordings, I mean obvious problems - cymbals wavering and losing clarity, guitar chords blending together into indiscernible crap. Just because 128kbps is a reasonable threshold for music that's tolerable doesn't mean it's okay to pay $15 for an album full of it.
The problems really stand out at high volumes - I can't stand 128kbps encodes of complex music being blasted on my stereo because of the distortion in the high ranges. A good pair of speakers is very different from a pair of shitty Ipod earbuds.
Writinng 400W on a PSU that fails at 380W is a lie.
It's not necessarily a lie. For instance, if a power supply has a claimed rating of 500 watts, it may be that they tested its capabilities at 15 degrees Celsius. While that's not a reasonable temperature to expect the inside of a computer case to be, it is still true that the power supply could adequately generate 500 watts at that temperature.
The issue here is also that people don't bother to figure out what the numbers mean, or don't do any research about their $12 "600w" power supply. A good power supply manufacturer will tell you that their power supply generates 450 watts at 35 degrees Celsius.
I just want to point out that we don't actually have rights now either. I can't buy alcohol until I'm twenty-one either because of federally-pushed state laws that arbitrarily prohibit the sale of alcohol to adults under the age of twenty-one.
One important factor is the age of the high school students surveyed. High schoolers generally don't take government courses until senior year, where they do a cursory and meaningless overview of the American system of government that more or less completely fails at teaching anyone anything about rights; but before senior year, most kids don't even necessarily know anything at all useful about the American government.
It's important to realize that part of the problem is that these kids' parents aren't bothering to actually teach their children about how government works and that they have rights, because more often it's more important that they perform well in the bullshit football/soccer/basketball game so they can have a small chance of getting a scholarship to a third-tier school based on sports ability and go pro someday. Or go bitter, and become a coach at some school to perpetuate the system. I guess.
I know this is Slashdot, and that religious faith causes readers to foam at the mouth and go into convulsions, but you DO realize most of the country is deeply religious, don't you?
I know this is America, and religious faith causes Americans to foam at the mouth and go into convulsions, but you DO realize that the country was founded with the Establishment Clause, don't you?
Would you invest $200,000 in making an album or a movie if your only hope of restitution was tips sent in by people you'll never meet, starting one or two years after your project is completed (and paid for)?
Why would someone need to invest that kind of money into an album? Any time I've heard a decent band get produced by a 'big name' producer, the music has come out sounding soulless, tinny, lacking mid-bass, and poppy, whereas the studio session in the padded and mic'ed garage sounded terrific. Maybe if Americans cared more about art in music than production values, none of this would matter, because if you could produce an album in a few weeks with a few hundred dollars worth of equipment and distribute it cheaply online you wouldn't be as fucked.
And movies cost way, WAAAAY more than $200k.
Incidentally, how do you justify the fact that the artists have to reimburse record companies for the $100k+ loan on studio time from the meager $1/CD that they get from sales? Why does the record company take 90% of profit AND force the artist to pay them back?
Oh yeah. That's why we hate the RIAA in the first place.
Yes, but there's a solution to this. It's easy enough to block calls that don't have caller ID, or that recognize calls without caller ID and say "If this is a sales or marketing call, please hang up now." You can even purchase devices to do this.
Besides, there's a huge difference between a sales call and a marketing call, and most people don't seem to know the difference. Telephone surveys are one of the primary means by which all surveys about anything are done.
I have to say, having worked as a telephone interviewer for a survey company, that this isn't nearly as unreasonable as it sounds from the article. People are insufferably rude when they receive unsolicited calls. I can understand not appreciating telemarketing calls or telephone surveys, but simply saying "Please place me on your 'Do Not Call' list" is always a sufficient way to deal with telemarketers.
And when you're calling someone for a survey, and you say "Hello, my name is Ketan from ***** Marketing Research and today we're conducting a survey" and they respond "FUCK YOU BITCH I don't want to buy none of your shit", it's very frustrating. Especially when you reply "Sir/Ma'am, I'm not trying to sell you anything" and they respond "Yes you are! Don't lie to me!".
Here are some examples of hilarious things that happen when you call people for surveys. Some of them are funny, but most of your calls just reaffirm that people are incapable of being polite or caring in any way.
Me: Hi, I'm calling from *** and we're-- Respondent: Keep it, buddy, I'm gettin' laid! [tries to hang up, picks up, dials number very quickly]
Me: Hi, I'm calling from ***-- Older Woman: Hiiiiii! How are-- Little Kid: GET OFF THE PHONE! GET OFF THE PHONE! Sorry, she's crazy.
Justin: Hi, I'm calling from ***-- Female Respondent: You just interrupted the best blow job ever. Justin: I am so, so sorry.
Me: Hello, I'm calling from *** Marketing and we're conducting a survey for *Cellular Company*. May I please speak to Edmund or someone in your house who has service with *Cell Company*? Respondent: I'm Edmund. I hate everybody. Bye.
Me: Is the person White, Asian, Hispanic, African American, or some other race? Respondent: Yeah, we're all Hispanic here. We migrated down from Hispania. [N.B. he was joking]
Pat: When would be a good time to call you back? Respondent: Probably about a year from now. Pat: A year? Awesome! [N.B. he was serious]
Drew: I assure you we're not trying to sell you anything. Respondent: You are trying to sell something! All of these surveys are just attempts to sell stuff! Let me tell you all about how it's all bullshit and you're just trying to advertise to me. Drew: Thank you sir. Have a nice day.
Slashdot Mirror
Men are good at certain things, Women are good at certain things. Regardless of "Equal Oppurtunities" etc. Men and Women are fundamentally different, see that's why there are different words for them. :P
Come now. Let's not get caught up in "Well, this is just the way things are, and there's no reason to change" nonsense. According to your argument, the lack of women doctors and CEOs in the 1950s was because men and women are 'inherently different', right? Except that there actually was systematic oppression of women in place to prevent them from succeeding in high-paying professions.
It may be true that, in general, men are more likely than women to write software. That doesn't mean that the way things are *now* is a perfect representation of how likely women are compared to men. When you grow up believing that only nerdy, quirky women are involved in math and science (as they are often portrayed in movies, etc.) and you want to fit in, you'll avoid those fields even if you really *would* be good at math or science. Likewise, as a male growing up seeing stereotypes of male hairdressers as gay, it's easy to write off being a hairdresser to avoid being typecast as gay.
Are men and women different? Sure. Men have penises and testicles, and women have vaginas. They're *generally* hormonally different, and *generally* have tendencies toward certain things. That doesn't mean it's useless to examine what factors cause those tendencies, or that it's a good thing that we have self-reinforcing gender stereotypes. Examine behavior rationally - fuck this homebrew "common sense" unscientific bullshit.
Pshaw. Only old Korean people use beowulf clusters of social bookmarking software.
Shouldn't there be a "Cliche" selection for modding people down?
"I think it's disingenuous to say that GTA is also a veiled criticism of our society. It's more like Miami Vice: all glorification and glamorization. At least on Miami Vice, the main character was a good guy (if a flawed one).
GTA isn't a great work of art. Don't pretend that it is."
Have you even played San Andreas? It's a beautifully crafted experience, the core storyline focuses on the *problem* that too many people are mindlessly killing, and the acting is better than in most movies I've seen in the past four years.
Just because you don't see the subtle criticism of popular culture in the GTA series doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Lots of people are probably incapable of seeing the irony in A Clockwork Orange, Grendel, or most of the post-modern movement in literature - that doesn't mean such books should be banned.
Where did this attitude that "university bandwidth should be used for academic purposes only" come from? That argument applies to public schools because students attend a free (excluding their parents' taxes) school at which bandwidth is paid for by the institution or taxpayers specifically for academic uses.
Students attending a university (especially a private university) are paying IN THEIR TUITION to have access to the network. They don't have an option to refuse paying for it if they want unrestricted access. If I'm paying my money for access to the internet through the commodity link, I had damn well better have unfettered access.
My school has instituted bandwidth caps - a small one for wireless access to avoid preventing others from using the same access point, and a large one for the wired connection to avoid excessive P2P use. I have unfettered access to the Internet given that I don't make it more difficult for others to equally access the same resource and as long as I don't cost a ridiculous amount of money in bandwidth, which I think is perfectly fair. Public schools that restrict are somewhat justified since they use tax money, but private universities should never run a restrictive firewall or throttle ports.
I had no idea the knee-jerk on slashdot was THIS overwhelming. So many people start screaming about personal use, and others scream back about artists and get modded down, and nobody has anything useful to say.
DRM is a form of technology. It is not necessarily poorly done, overly restrictive metadata. It is simply a method by which ownership and rights can be managed digitally.
One form of DRM might be paying a company to give you universal access to your data with authentication. Another might be having the right to have unlimited personal copies of a song that you have paid for the right to listen to. Another is the crippling hardware and software restriction imposed by current DRM-ed music files. They are not all the same thing, and it's stupid to reject any form of DRM because you like to share music with all your friends.
Basic economics dictate that EVERYONE would, at some point, accept DRM given an appropriate price point and enough capability for fair use. EVERYONE. So why not actually think about what benefits would be compelling enough to accept DRM? That was the point of this post, I think...
The problem with mp3 and ogg is not that they are open formats - it's not that "the man" is coming down on you and trying to proliferate Microsoft technology. The problem is that because they are digital formats, they allow for *unlimited* duplication and spreading. If one person buys a song without DRM, that person can send copies of that song millions and millions of time with relatively little effort. That's not a good thing - artists need to make up the costs of producing the song and hopefully make some money to eat food.
The real problem right now is the way the industry is structured, and it's stupid to blame DRM for the record industry. Artists get a maximum of ten percent of album sales (and that's not very likely) and the other ninety+ cents drives up the cost of the product until it's just plain stupid.
So what do we need out of DRM in order to accept it?
-*Limited* transferability so that it is possible to easily share music with friends, but not to share with everyone on the Internet
-First-sale rights so it is possible to sell the authorization to listen to a song to someone else as used
-Unlimited transferability to other devices, modes of data transportation, and formats for painless use in any situation
-Unlimited access to a song when the rights are owned, regardless of location, so that if I am in another country I can get on a computer and listen to my collection if I want to
-A low enough price point to justify the slight limitations imposed by the DRM and ensure that it is always easier to purchase the song than to download it for free
This last point is crucial, and is being attacked by the industry stupidly. Should we drive up the cost of filesharing by pursuing bullshit litigation and circumventing due process of law, or drive down the prices so it's easier to go to XYZ online music store and buy a song than it is to get on i2hub or eDonkey and try to download it? I know, let's give our consumers a big "fuck you!" and force through bullshit legislation to restrict fair use! Hooray!
But seriously, don't be so stupid as to say that DRM is always evil. The current forms of DRM are poorly done and are overly restrictive, making them less appealing than simply using filesharing to infringe on copyrights. But with the right price point, very slight restrictions, and the potential for global scalability of owned rights to listen to songs with more ease and enjoyment than the current system provides, absolutely everyone would prefer to pay and receive a fantastic service than not pay and not receive the benefits of a well-done digital rights setup.
Hey, don't bring me into this!
Besides, if Keanu Reeves can do it, anyone can.
A five or six year old girl or boy using an unrestricted Internet connection without parental supervision is the fault of bad parenting. It's not that rights are being invaded - it's just bad to set a precedent that the government should restrict the free market in order to do the job of parents.
I mean, what's next? Some sort of organization to filter what can and can't be said on television?
Oh... shit.
I hate to be a douche and use multiple punctuation marks, but I can't help it. The PSP is a better value... but it lasts for three hours of gameplay. How does that work, exactly? I use portable gaming systems when waiting in lines, bored between classes, and when I'm relaxing and don't feel like going downstairs to the big TV. The only time the PSP is useful is in the latter situation.
If I have an hour to wait between classes, I can play my PSP... but then if I want to play all afternoon while waiting for an evening event, I'm screwed! The last time I took my DS out I was waiting five hours for a stereo installation. I hadn't charged the battery the night before, but I had no problem sitting and playing Wario Ware for the entire time. The PSP would be dead long before I could leave, especially if I had previously used it to listen to MP3s or watch movies.
Why would I use a handheld device that has to be plugged into the wall for extended use?
And then he argues that the PSP has more compelling games, ignoring the massive library of fantastic GBA games available to anyone with a DS. GBA games look ten times better on a DS than on a GBA SP because of the properly backlit screens.
But it's a better value to have a system that's not functionally portable, has a limited selection of slow ports of old PS2 games, has useless MP3 functionality, and plays videos for a few hours than to have a system with hundreds of older games and at least eight hours of battery life. Hmm.
I'm no Nintendo fanboy, but I'd like a portable system to actually be portable. This is like saying "Alienware desktop replacement laptops are much better than tablet PCs" - it's true in a certain context, but based upon arbitrary measures of what makes something a superior product. I don't want to lug a ten pound laptop with ten minutes of battery life around for my portable computing needs, and I don't want to lug a fragile disc-based system with three hours of battery life for my portable gaming needs.
I assume that when you say you're against "all drug use, including marijuana" you're also against alcohol and tobacco, which are completely legal for adults over 21 and 18 (respectively) to buy. Because believing that alcohol should be legal and marijuana should not is an entirely indefensible position. The argument is something like "Alcohol is good, even though it can poison and kill you... but weed is bad, even though you cannot overdose on it. I believe EVERYTHING my government tells me! Reefer madness is scary!"
Even the WTO thinks United States marijuana laws are bullshit.
Yes, yes, let's mod up everyone who's bitching about how sad they are that they don't know who mc chris is. That's very cool.
Wait a second - you fuckers clicked on this link! "Waaah, I'm really upset that this article is on slashdot, even though read the headline, knew that I had no idea what the article was about, and chose to spend time reading it anyway. My life is so hard."
I don't know who the fuck mc chris is, but I'm not going to complain that I don't understand what he's talking about after I made the CHOICE to read the article and scan the comments. Jesus. Whining like this is the reason the FCC exists.
You may be treated like that in the south, but we're treated like that everywhere else!
Really? Interesting. I didn't realize that me and the other fifteen atheists in the United States were making it so hard on you hundred million or so religious folks. We'll try harder not to use our massive majority to oppress you.
I have no issue watching documentaries about other religions, or lack thereof (though, of course, it raises an interesting view..if you lack a religion..doesn't that become your religion? If you refuse to believe or acknowledge God, aren't you following a belief system?)
Wow, nice. You managed to come up with a really original argument that no atheist has ever rebutted. Please feel free to read more about atheism before you start redefining it on your own terms.
You complain about people acting that way, while you yourself seem to feel free to bash the other side in the manner you just mentioned offended you!
Erm... I thought we were complaining about religious wackos who think that evolution is evil and wrong influencing stupid businesses to avoid showing films that might offend their fairytale worldview, but I guess you're right, we're just 'bashing' religion with no justification. I mean, the destruction of science is no reason to complain, right?
Why is it that people insist on categorizing all fundamentalists as being the same? I am a fundamentalist Bible-believing Christian, but that doesn't mean that I checked my intelligence at the door.
I would offer that maybe people categorize all fundamentalists as being the same because the word "fundamentalism" means:
A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism (Dictionary.com)
So it's easy to think that fundamentalists have reduced their beliefs to the fundamental tenets of their religion. It'd also be reasonable to assume that fundamentalists are often intolerant of other views. Maybe you should stop calling yourself a fundamentalist now that you know the definition, eh?
Me: Haha, I'm going to make a joke about badly colored movies. Everyone Else: You're a movie snob! Colorized movies is t3h r0x0rz! Next time, I'll be sure to include a /sarcasm tag so it's more evident that I'm not really making a comment on the article at all.
Now it's even easier for corporations re-releasing films to completely destroy the original beauty of a film by adding unnatural and unnecessary color!
Coming soon, new dubbing techniques will allow easy substitution of the original actors' voices and dialogue with trite teen-angst to appeal to younger generations.
It's funny how easy it is to remember that correlation is not the same as causality and still forget that a mean score is not necessarily a median score.
It is not necessarily true that half of the population has an IQ below 100. The average (or mean) IQ is 100, but it could be the case that there is a high concentration of people who have 100-130 IQs and then a small number of outliers with IQs under 20. That's not a likely cases, but it's as important to remember the difference between mean and median measures as it is to remember the difference between correlated and causal conclusions.
1) MP3 certainly is a standard, so I don't see how your arguments about Ogg/AAC/WMA/MP3Pro are really relevant. Sure, it's nice that I can listen to a 128kbps ogg without vomiting, but if I can't play it in my car stereo or on a CD MP3 player, I don't want it. How can you say "MP3 is becoming a standard" and then turn around and say "Well, with new formats that aren't standard, audio quality is adequate"? That doesn't make any sense!
2) I won't trust you, because "it's proven time and time again" is a bullshit phrase when someone can't find a relevant source to back up their claims.
Just because it's difficult to distinguish between two bitrates on something you've never heard before doesn't mean that one is as good as another. Have you ever tried listening to musically complex metal (e.g. System of a Down) at 128kbps? It's painful! The issue is more often the codec used than the bitrate, but a 128 still sounds like shit compared to a 192 in a lot of cases. I don't mean the types of things that are present in 24 bit recordings, I mean obvious problems - cymbals wavering and losing clarity, guitar chords blending together into indiscernible crap. Just because 128kbps is a reasonable threshold for music that's tolerable doesn't mean it's okay to pay $15 for an album full of it.
The problems really stand out at high volumes - I can't stand 128kbps encodes of complex music being blasted on my stereo because of the distortion in the high ranges. A good pair of speakers is very different from a pair of shitty Ipod earbuds.
Writinng 400W on a PSU that fails at 380W is a lie.
It's not necessarily a lie. For instance, if a power supply has a claimed rating of 500 watts, it may be that they tested its capabilities at 15 degrees Celsius. While that's not a reasonable temperature to expect the inside of a computer case to be, it is still true that the power supply could adequately generate 500 watts at that temperature.
The issue here is also that people don't bother to figure out what the numbers mean, or don't do any research about their $12 "600w" power supply. A good power supply manufacturer will tell you that their power supply generates 450 watts at 35 degrees Celsius.
I just want to point out that we don't actually have rights now either. I can't buy alcohol until I'm twenty-one either because of federally-pushed state laws that arbitrarily prohibit the sale of alcohol to adults under the age of twenty-one.
One important factor is the age of the high school students surveyed. High schoolers generally don't take government courses until senior year, where they do a cursory and meaningless overview of the American system of government that more or less completely fails at teaching anyone anything about rights; but before senior year, most kids don't even necessarily know anything at all useful about the American government.
It's important to realize that part of the problem is that these kids' parents aren't bothering to actually teach their children about how government works and that they have rights, because more often it's more important that they perform well in the bullshit football/soccer/basketball game so they can have a small chance of getting a scholarship to a third-tier school based on sports ability and go pro someday. Or go bitter, and become a coach at some school to perpetuate the system. I guess.
I know this is Slashdot, and that religious faith causes readers to foam at the mouth and go into convulsions, but you DO realize most of the country is deeply religious, don't you?
I know this is America, and religious faith causes Americans to foam at the mouth and go into convulsions, but you DO realize that the country was founded with the Establishment Clause, don't you?
Would you invest $200,000 in making an album or a movie if your only hope of restitution was tips sent in by people you'll never meet, starting one or two years after your project is completed (and paid for)?
Why would someone need to invest that kind of money into an album? Any time I've heard a decent band get produced by a 'big name' producer, the music has come out sounding soulless, tinny, lacking mid-bass, and poppy, whereas the studio session in the padded and mic'ed garage sounded terrific. Maybe if Americans cared more about art in music than production values, none of this would matter, because if you could produce an album in a few weeks with a few hundred dollars worth of equipment and distribute it cheaply online you wouldn't be as fucked.
And movies cost way, WAAAAY more than $200k. Incidentally, how do you justify the fact that the artists have to reimburse record companies for the $100k+ loan on studio time from the meager $1/CD that they get from sales? Why does the record company take 90% of profit AND force the artist to pay them back? Oh yeah. That's why we hate the RIAA in the first place.
Yes, but there's a solution to this. It's easy enough to block calls that don't have caller ID, or that recognize calls without caller ID and say "If this is a sales or marketing call, please hang up now." You can even purchase devices to do this.
Besides, there's a huge difference between a sales call and a marketing call, and most people don't seem to know the difference. Telephone surveys are one of the primary means by which all surveys about anything are done.
I have to say, having worked as a telephone interviewer for a survey company, that this isn't nearly as unreasonable as it sounds from the article. People are insufferably rude when they receive unsolicited calls. I can understand not appreciating telemarketing calls or telephone surveys, but simply saying "Please place me on your 'Do Not Call' list" is always a sufficient way to deal with telemarketers.
And when you're calling someone for a survey, and you say "Hello, my name is Ketan from ***** Marketing Research and today we're conducting a survey" and they respond "FUCK YOU BITCH I don't want to buy none of your shit", it's very frustrating. Especially when you reply "Sir/Ma'am, I'm not trying to sell you anything" and they respond "Yes you are! Don't lie to me!".
Here are some examples of hilarious things that happen when you call people for surveys. Some of them are funny, but most of your calls just reaffirm that people are incapable of being polite or caring in any way.
Me: Hi, I'm calling from *** and we're--
Respondent: Keep it, buddy, I'm gettin' laid! [tries to hang up, picks up, dials number very quickly]
Me: Hi, I'm calling from ***--
Older Woman: Hiiiiii! How are--
Little Kid: GET OFF THE PHONE! GET OFF THE PHONE! Sorry, she's crazy.
Justin: Hi, I'm calling from ***--
Female Respondent: You just interrupted the best blow job ever.
Justin: I am so, so sorry.
Me: Hello, I'm calling from *** Marketing and we're conducting a survey for *Cellular Company*. May I please speak to Edmund or someone in your house who has service with *Cell Company*?
Respondent: I'm Edmund. I hate everybody. Bye.
Me: Is the person White, Asian, Hispanic, African American, or some other race?
Respondent: Yeah, we're all Hispanic here. We migrated down from Hispania. [N.B. he was joking]
Pat: When would be a good time to call you back?
Respondent: Probably about a year from now.
Pat: A year? Awesome! [N.B. he was serious]
Drew: I assure you we're not trying to sell you anything.
Respondent: You are trying to sell something! All of these surveys are just attempts to sell stuff! Let me tell you all about how it's all bullshit and you're just trying to advertise to me.
Drew: Thank you sir. Have a nice day.