Now, as some sort of stationary home phone that uses a cellular network, if being bigger means that it sounds clearer and whatnot, then it would be reasonable for it to be bigger. But it still shouldn't be so big that it takes up too much space in the house.
So, epic fail with the example there.
Weird. You just basically rephrased my point, yet you call my point an "epic fail"? Does that mean your point is a "fail" too, seeing as it is exactly the same as mine?
Not to drift off topic, but B-movies never died, they just became "Direct-To-Video" in the '80s....
No to belabor the point, but I think that is a fairly different realm. The B-movie is a relic of an era when people didn't have TVs, and would go to the cinema for a whole evening's entertainment. And they would go regularly. There would be newsreels and short films in addition to the feature films. The B-movie exists in this context, where it is a companion to other films.
The direct-to-video low budget movie is a different phenomenon, that caters to individual viewers in their homes. They are not intended to complement other films, and they are often very niche in their targeted audience.
I think we need to draw this distinction, because what is happening now (YouTube, etc) is very different to the B-movie phenomenon. B-movies were made industrially, as a part of the studio system. Much like tins of processed food. The direct-to-video and Youtube phenomenon are more about smaller (and individual) producers doing their own thing, not something that's made-to-spec by the studios to act as filler.
It makes me think of the scene in an old B-movie (Flashdance)
You don't seem to understand what a B-movie is. Flashdance is certainly not one. In fact, Flashdance was released in an era when the B-movie was basically extinct.
A B-movie is a formulaic low-budget film that is intended to accompany the A-movie in a double-feature screening. Flashdance was not low budget, and was not intended to be seen as part of a double-feature screening. In fact, it was a huge box-office success.
No, but this is already a solved problem... I haven't had reception problems in years,
But you said it should always be function over form. If you really meant this, then a bread-loaf-sized phone should always be preferred to a pocket-sized phone, even if it only gets 1 extra dBm of signal strength.
My point is that this is an over-simplistic fallacy. There are always trade-offs and compromises. Even the idea of "function" and "form" being separate is a fallacy. They are intertwined and dependent on one another. Why have laptops become more popular than desktop computers? It's because the form actually increases functionality.
I really don't understand why this simple concept is so widely misunderstood.
Web developers have this really weird reality perception filter. It's almost like 1984 "doublethink". We have always been at war with Flash, CSS 3 is our friend.
You must hang out with some really unusual web developers. Most web developers I know are almost slavishly devoted to testing on IE6 and not adopting new standards unless they can be tweaked to work in IE6. Most also really like Flash. While some of the more progressive developers are into things like HTML5, they are the minority.
I think you have a distorted perception. There are vast numbers of people out there doing HTML who have barely progressed beyond Microsoft FrontPage, and struggle with things like CSS.
Becuase they're fucking retarded and can't handle a touchpad?
Ah yes, the typical response of someone who lacks mental capacity, but thinks they are intelligent. When confronted with something you don't understand, you react with "they're all retarded, and not smart enough to see things my way, which is the only valid way of seeing things."
I'm pretty sure everyone who had bought an iPad has used a touchpad before, and has no difficulty using one.
Denholm: It's settled. I've got a good feeling about you Jen and they need a new manager. Jen: Fantastic! So, the people I'll be working with, what are they like? Denholm: Standard nerds!
Jobs' has motive for saying the story is bullshit (especially considering there is a court case that has been granted class-action status). If he did not deny the story, it wil be used against Apple in the case.
And Gizmodo has motive for making up bullshit stories. Why would you believe them unless they came up with actual evidence, rather than anonymous comments?
Gizmodo is a third party, and they have been pretty consistent in reporting on both points of view on this issue.
So, instead of an unnecessarily long sub-thread, you get an unnecessarily long anonymous sub-thread, and still don't achieve the goal of burying the bad data. Sorry, that just doesn't work.
Yep, b/c unless you're amish(at which point why are you on/.) you enjoy the benefits of our oil powered and enriched society.
I never said I didn't.
It's just that some abuse it more than others, even though we all pay. For example, people who drive ridiculously unnecessary vehicles like Hummers. That's a world away from oil being used for useful purposes that increase quality of life or productivity.
What's so bad about paying for the benefits oil provides, rather than passing the buck on to others? Many people suffer for our oil-driven luxuries. I don't like that.
Isn't the main reason it is so expensive in most of the world is due to taxes, and not the oil companies themselves?
Firstly, oil is not expensive anywhere in the world, it's incredibly cheap.
Secondly, even in the most expensive places in the world, you're not paying the true cost of oil. The cost of disasters like this, oil-related wars, etc, are not figured into the price of oil or gasoline. It's highly subsidized by society. We all pay the cost for you filling up your tank, whether we actually drive a car or not.
A disagree mod seems completely pointless. All it tells me is that "Somewhere, somebody disagreed with this guy." Well that's great.
Yeah, but you could make it so it has no karma consequences, or something. It would be a way of marking a comment as unpopular, without abusing mods like "troll" which have a specific meaning, and karmic consequences (which is what happens now).
Anyway, I'm more in favor of a "factually incorrect" mod than a "disagree" mod. And that one should have karmic consequences. Why shouldn't posting false information be punishable?
Come on, if somebody is wrong, then tell me what's right instead.
Did you even read my post? People do point out where people are wrong, but it doesn't make any difference. Some people are determined to be wrong, or fervently believe in untruths. Posting replies just adds to the noise. The whole point of the mod system should be to increase the signal-to-noise ratio. Having a bunch of additional posts about a factual inaccuracy just makes things worse. Better just to bury the incorrect post and give more attention to the truthful and insightful ones.
It's not that different to the motto "don't feed the trolls" except it's about not feeding the ignorant or deliberately misleading.
We can already see how the term "troll" has lost much of its meaning, because now people use that word to refer to anybody who disagrees with them. Slashdot shouldn't be perpetuating this misuse.
Shit got real heavy real quick and one day we found Scrye (nickname for the metallurgist) hemorrhaging blood out of his ears in a coma from strapping two subwoofers to either side of his head with duct tape.
Same story as always. The scene starts out all pure and idealistic, and then goes commercial and the sell-outs ruin it.
And in turn here in the real adult life people have better things to do than mess around with all kinds of tricks, spend time on it and then think if it really works.
And as we all know, only adults play computer games and not a single minor would be interested in such a frivolous activity. Equally as true, we all know that there's not a single unemployed adult in the world, and every adult has access to an ample stream of income.
Most newspaper websites have nowhere near enough visitors to do this.
It's even worse than that. Think of your typical commenter on a newspaper websites. They are the trolls. Giving them moderation power would just make things even worse. It would turn very nasty very quickly.
But what about posts that are obviously factually incorrect? Why shouldn't there be a mod for that? I guess "overrated" would be appropriate, but doesn't really explain why it has been modded down. And often, it's not worth the time trying to talk sense into people who have things completely wrong. That will just spawn an unnecessarily long sub-thread.
If you disagree, don't mod, post instead.
So, why doesn't this apply to the other mod categories? If you find a post insightful, don't mod, post instead.
Bottom line - people will use mod points to note their disagreement. So, why not allow for that, rather than having the troll mod abused until it is meaningless?
That's only true if you don't value your soul, a small piece of which is taken by CmdrTaco every time you post. I hear he likes to drink the tears of angry nerds like wine with his evening meal.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, as some sort of stationary home phone that uses a cellular network, if being bigger means that it sounds clearer and whatnot, then it would be reasonable for it to be bigger. But it still shouldn't be so big that it takes up too much space in the house.
So, epic fail with the example there.
Weird. You just basically rephrased my point, yet you call my point an "epic fail"? Does that mean your point is a "fail" too, seeing as it is exactly the same as mine?
Not to drift off topic, but B-movies never died, they just became "Direct-To-Video" in the '80s....
No to belabor the point, but I think that is a fairly different realm. The B-movie is a relic of an era when people didn't have TVs, and would go to the cinema for a whole evening's entertainment. And they would go regularly. There would be newsreels and short films in addition to the feature films. The B-movie exists in this context, where it is a companion to other films.
The direct-to-video low budget movie is a different phenomenon, that caters to individual viewers in their homes. They are not intended to complement other films, and they are often very niche in their targeted audience.
I think we need to draw this distinction, because what is happening now (YouTube, etc) is very different to the B-movie phenomenon. B-movies were made industrially, as a part of the studio system. Much like tins of processed food. The direct-to-video and Youtube phenomenon are more about smaller (and individual) producers doing their own thing, not something that's made-to-spec by the studios to act as filler.
It makes me think of the scene in an old B-movie (Flashdance)
You don't seem to understand what a B-movie is. Flashdance is certainly not one. In fact, Flashdance was released in an era when the B-movie was basically extinct.
A B-movie is a formulaic low-budget film that is intended to accompany the A-movie in a double-feature screening. Flashdance was not low budget, and was not intended to be seen as part of a double-feature screening. In fact, it was a huge box-office success.
No, but this is already a solved problem... I haven't had reception problems in years,
But you said it should always be function over form. If you really meant this, then a bread-loaf-sized phone should always be preferred to a pocket-sized phone, even if it only gets 1 extra dBm of signal strength.
My point is that this is an over-simplistic fallacy. There are always trade-offs and compromises. Even the idea of "function" and "form" being separate is a fallacy. They are intertwined and dependent on one another. Why have laptops become more popular than desktop computers? It's because the form actually increases functionality.
I really don't understand why this simple concept is so widely misunderstood.
Web developers have this really weird reality perception filter. It's almost like 1984 "doublethink". We have always been at war with Flash, CSS 3 is our friend.
You must hang out with some really unusual web developers. Most web developers I know are almost slavishly devoted to testing on IE6 and not adopting new standards unless they can be tweaked to work in IE6. Most also really like Flash. While some of the more progressive developers are into things like HTML5, they are the minority.
I think you have a distorted perception. There are vast numbers of people out there doing HTML who have barely progressed beyond Microsoft FrontPage, and struggle with things like CSS.
What videos? All I see is "Get Quicktime".
You're holding it wrong.
Becuase they're fucking retarded and can't handle a touchpad?
Ah yes, the typical response of someone who lacks mental capacity, but thinks they are intelligent. When confronted with something you don't understand, you react with "they're all retarded, and not smart enough to see things my way, which is the only valid way of seeing things."
I'm pretty sure everyone who had bought an iPad has used a touchpad before, and has no difficulty using one.
Still, it should always be function over form
So, a phone that's the size of a loaf of bread is better than a phone that fits in your pocket if it is slightly more functional?
Denholm: It's settled. I've got a good feeling about you Jen and they need a new manager.
Jen: Fantastic! So, the people I'll be working with, what are they like?
Denholm: Standard nerds!
[Note: Not to be confused with standards nerds]
slim and none. Take your pick.
Can I buy a vowel?
Jobs' has motive for saying the story is bullshit (especially considering there is a court case that has been granted class-action status). If he did not deny the story, it wil be used against Apple in the case.
And Gizmodo has motive for making up bullshit stories. Why would you believe them unless they came up with actual evidence, rather than anonymous comments?
Gizmodo is a third party, and they have been pretty consistent in reporting on both points of view on this issue.
*Snort* Now that's funny.
Just respond anonymously.
So, instead of an unnecessarily long sub-thread, you get an unnecessarily long anonymous sub-thread, and still don't achieve the goal of burying the bad data. Sorry, that just doesn't work.
Yep, b/c unless you're amish(at which point why are you on /.) you enjoy the benefits of our oil powered and enriched society.
I never said I didn't.
It's just that some abuse it more than others, even though we all pay. For example, people who drive ridiculously unnecessary vehicles like Hummers. That's a world away from oil being used for useful purposes that increase quality of life or productivity.
What's so bad about paying for the benefits oil provides, rather than passing the buck on to others? Many people suffer for our oil-driven luxuries. I don't like that.
Isn't the main reason it is so expensive in most of the world is due to taxes, and not the oil companies themselves?
Firstly, oil is not expensive anywhere in the world, it's incredibly cheap.
Secondly, even in the most expensive places in the world, you're not paying the true cost of oil. The cost of disasters like this, oil-related wars, etc, are not figured into the price of oil or gasoline. It's highly subsidized by society. We all pay the cost for you filling up your tank, whether we actually drive a car or not.
A disagree mod seems completely pointless. All it tells me is that "Somewhere, somebody disagreed with this guy." Well that's great.
Yeah, but you could make it so it has no karma consequences, or something. It would be a way of marking a comment as unpopular, without abusing mods like "troll" which have a specific meaning, and karmic consequences (which is what happens now).
Anyway, I'm more in favor of a "factually incorrect" mod than a "disagree" mod. And that one should have karmic consequences. Why shouldn't posting false information be punishable?
Come on, if somebody is wrong, then tell me what's right instead.
Did you even read my post? People do point out where people are wrong, but it doesn't make any difference. Some people are determined to be wrong, or fervently believe in untruths. Posting replies just adds to the noise. The whole point of the mod system should be to increase the signal-to-noise ratio. Having a bunch of additional posts about a factual inaccuracy just makes things worse. Better just to bury the incorrect post and give more attention to the truthful and insightful ones.
It's not that different to the motto "don't feed the trolls" except it's about not feeding the ignorant or deliberately misleading.
We can already see how the term "troll" has lost much of its meaning, because now people use that word to refer to anybody who disagrees with them. Slashdot shouldn't be perpetuating this misuse.
Don't believe me? Google "fear drives sales"
I'm not falling for your so-called "Google" scam. Stop trying to scare me into buying more useless products.
Shit happens.
Shit got real heavy real quick and one day we found Scrye (nickname for the metallurgist) hemorrhaging blood out of his ears in a coma from strapping two subwoofers to either side of his head with duct tape.
Same story as always. The scene starts out all pure and idealistic, and then goes commercial and the sell-outs ruin it.
No one is going to say that sex is unhealthy,
Apart from the millions of prudes, wowsers and religious extremists who campaign against sex as being an evil that corrupts and enslaves humans?
And in turn here in the real adult life people have better things to do than mess around with all kinds of tricks, spend time on it and then think if it really works.
And as we all know, only adults play computer games and not a single minor would be interested in such a frivolous activity. Equally as true, we all know that there's not a single unemployed adult in the world, and every adult has access to an ample stream of income.
Most newspaper websites have nowhere near enough visitors to do this.
It's even worse than that. Think of your typical commenter on a newspaper websites. They are the trolls. Giving them moderation power would just make things even worse. It would turn very nasty very quickly.
But what about posts that are obviously factually incorrect? Why shouldn't there be a mod for that? I guess "overrated" would be appropriate, but doesn't really explain why it has been modded down. And often, it's not worth the time trying to talk sense into people who have things completely wrong. That will just spawn an unnecessarily long sub-thread.
If you disagree, don't mod, post instead.
So, why doesn't this apply to the other mod categories? If you find a post insightful, don't mod, post instead.
Bottom line - people will use mod points to note their disagreement. So, why not allow for that, rather than having the troll mod abused until it is meaningless?
posting here is still free
That's only true if you don't value your soul, a small piece of which is taken by CmdrTaco every time you post. I hear he likes to drink the tears of angry nerds like wine with his evening meal.
A great excuse to stay away from Motorola. It's not the OS, it's the hardware, and only Motorola (that we know of) is doing this crap.
Right. Droid is the Motorola trademark (licensed from Lucasfilm) for their hardware that runs the Android software.
So, recalling a phone that works fine is a smart move? I assume you don't have anything to do with actually running a business.