So, by your "logic", if my phone supports Vorbis, it can't possibly support other codecs? I assure you that's not the case.
So, what's the point then? If you are all about open standards, then why would you want a device to support closed standards? Where's the incentive for content providers to use open standards if you have support for their existing closed standard, anyway?
Agreed. This type of movie is _stereoscopic_, not 3D. It's 3D when I can walk around it, see it from the back, or at least arbitrarily focus on any point in foreground or background.
Do you really think that average people are going to start using a clumsy and antiquated word like "stereoscopic"? Maybe you should pitch this idea to a movie marketing company and see how far you get.
I thouroghly enjoy DVD resolution on my ED 42" monitor, and still haven't seen the point in HD.
Well, yeah. People still enjoyed movies on VHS and 16mm film. That's not a compelling argument against upgrading to DVD, though. It just means you got used to what you have. When you start using something else, you'll start noticing the deficiences in what you had.
Once upon a time, computers with raster graphics (as opposed to text-mode) and a screen resolution of 320x240 pixels were absolutely amazing.
It's a treadmill that the movie theaters can't get ahead on. Instead of trying to stay on the digital advancement treadmill, they should be marketing their tradition and atmosphere etc
That's a nice thought, but we live in an age where people answer their phone while watching a movie. I'd be all for a cinema that disciplined or ejected these people for disturbing other patrons. Unfortunately, those people seem to be in the majority now, so by pissing off the cellphone talkers, they would be eliminating their major source of income. It seems like an intractable problem, unless etiquette somehow becomes trendy all of a sudden.
I can't think of anything that will do more to reinforce the stereotype that gamers are a bunch of pathetic losers than their efforts to "raise awareness" to this issue by dressing up as zombies and "marching" in "protest".
Oh, come on. This is happening in Sydney. Nobody will even notice, it will look like a typical weekday.
Actually they're probably googling Facebook.com instead of just typing it in the address bar.
Well, yes. That was the entire point of my post, it was a reference to the ReadWriteWeb incident mentioned by other correspondents. Sometimes I wonder if slashdot users are any more intelligent than those who tried to log in to Facebook via the ReadWriteWeb article.
Facebook still has a ways to go if you include Google's non-search properties, which bring the total up to 11.03% of traffic.
So, in other words, the entire premise of the headline/summary/article is a lie? What would the statistics for Facebook be if you only included "search properties"?
But that's the whole crux of the argument isn't it ? A long time ago, LPs and Singles had to be physically made in huge machines, tapes had to be created, CD's had to be pressed.
Why should physical products be privileged over intellectual ones? Physical products wear out and die in a short amount of time. Intellectual products can last a lot longer, potentially for as long as humans survive. Physical products can cause massive environmental damage and waste. Many humans have been killed, disabled or made ill in the manufacturing process. Why should we pay more for something that is bad for humanity, instead of something that has fewer side effects?
It's just a bad, bad TV series, and the BBC should be embarassed for even allowing it to continue. It's really a horrible stain on their otherwise generally good reputation.
The funny/sad thing about this is that Panorama is like an award-winning documentary compared to Fox News, and yet Fox New is increasingly being taken seriously as a news source in America.
Its not my view that its "Catastrophic" either. I'm simply stating that the view held can't be simplified to the point that it's only two astronauts who believe it, because they have stated it. In likely hood others may well agree with them and not say anything, for whatever reason
So, you're basically saying that there are astronauts out there who are cowards? Nobody worthy of that job would shy away from speaking out about something catastrophic.
I'm just glad that we live in a society where we can have individual points of view and are aloud to state them. Wether we agree with it or not.
Well, that's a given. I'm also glad that we can speak out when people say utterly stupid things like these astronauts did. I don't really see what the positive side of this story is - "two astronauts say dumb things" - and we are supposed to revel in the fact that people have the right to say dumb things?
My neighbor has the right to call people "niggers," but that doesn't make it any less pitiful that he decides to say that.
How is it easier? That means you have to calculate the average cost, and those percentage points required to stay profitable. It's much easier to charge for distance/time used.
I just could never say there is only two who believe that.
Really? Calling the current plans for NASA "catastrophic" is a very extreme view. I very much doubt any other astronauts would believe that. And again, if it truly is catastrophic, it is their duty to speak out about it.
Frankly, I don't see the catastrophe. It may or may not be the right decision, but what exactly is the catastrophe?
Uhm. But you can get stuck in a traffic jam and pay a lot of money, even if you ride once a year.
That's exactly what I'm saying! Pay for the journey you take, not the journey of others. In this case, it's known as "bad luck."
When you drive your own car, does someone else pay for the extra gas consumed when you get stuck in a traffic jam? Does someone else compensate you for the time wasted? No. So why should that be the case with taxis?
You don't think this gets factored into the price? Regular price from A to B might be $10. However, the taxi company sees that there is heavy construction along the route, not to mention it's rush hour and the main route tends to get jammed. So the quoted price to the customer might be $17 to accomodate.
That's not apparent from the post I was replying to, which claims a fixed rate.
Either way, regardless of how the taxi company figures it, doesn't mean it is fair on the taxi driver.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think we'd be back to the "this site requires IE 8.x or higher" days. That really is something from early 2000
How is that possible? Internet Explorer 8 was released in March 2009, nearly a decade after the year 2000.
So, by your "logic", if my phone supports Vorbis, it can't possibly support other codecs? I assure you that's not the case.
So, what's the point then? If you are all about open standards, then why would you want a device to support closed standards? Where's the incentive for content providers to use open standards if you have support for their existing closed standard, anyway?
Nobody would argue that MP3 is a closed format, for example.
I would. MP3 is a proprietary format.
Agreed. This type of movie is _stereoscopic_, not 3D. It's 3D when I can walk around it, see it from the back, or at least arbitrarily focus on any point in foreground or background.
Do you really think that average people are going to start using a clumsy and antiquated word like "stereoscopic"? Maybe you should pitch this idea to a movie marketing company and see how far you get.
Who would pirate a movie if they could get a DVD for under $5?
People who have a better use for $5? Don't think the entire world is like your privileged self. For most people, saving $5 is very important.
I thouroghly enjoy DVD resolution on my ED 42" monitor, and still haven't seen the point in HD.
Well, yeah. People still enjoyed movies on VHS and 16mm film. That's not a compelling argument against upgrading to DVD, though. It just means you got used to what you have. When you start using something else, you'll start noticing the deficiences in what you had.
Once upon a time, computers with raster graphics (as opposed to text-mode) and a screen resolution of 320x240 pixels were absolutely amazing.
That's still not enough Blade Runner for me!
It's a treadmill that the movie theaters can't get ahead on. Instead of trying to stay on the digital advancement treadmill, they should be marketing their tradition and atmosphere etc
That's a nice thought, but we live in an age where people answer their phone while watching a movie. I'd be all for a cinema that disciplined or ejected these people for disturbing other patrons. Unfortunately, those people seem to be in the majority now, so by pissing off the cellphone talkers, they would be eliminating their major source of income. It seems like an intractable problem, unless etiquette somehow becomes trendy all of a sudden.
I can't think of anything that will do more to reinforce the stereotype that gamers are a bunch of pathetic losers than their efforts to "raise awareness" to this issue by dressing up as zombies and "marching" in "protest".
Oh, come on. This is happening in Sydney. Nobody will even notice, it will look like a typical weekday.
Actually they're probably googling Facebook.com instead of just typing it in the address bar.
Well, yes. That was the entire point of my post, it was a reference to the ReadWriteWeb incident mentioned by other correspondents. Sometimes I wonder if slashdot users are any more intelligent than those who tried to log in to Facebook via the ReadWriteWeb article.
Come on, CNN. These people aren't saying "Oh, well, I have Facebook, so fuck Google"...they are just going to Facebook.
Not only are they going to Facebook, they're also Googling "facebook login."
Facebook still has a ways to go if you include Google's non-search properties, which bring the total up to 11.03% of traffic.
So, in other words, the entire premise of the headline/summary/article is a lie? What would the statistics for Facebook be if you only included "search properties"?
No one cries for horse buggy makers or tanners or typewriter makers
Not true.
But that's the whole crux of the argument isn't it ? A long time ago, LPs and Singles had to be physically made in huge machines, tapes had to be created, CD's had to be pressed.
Why should physical products be privileged over intellectual ones? Physical products wear out and die in a short amount of time. Intellectual products can last a lot longer, potentially for as long as humans survive. Physical products can cause massive environmental damage and waste. Many humans have been killed, disabled or made ill in the manufacturing process. Why should we pay more for something that is bad for humanity, instead of something that has fewer side effects?
It's just a bad, bad TV series, and the BBC should be embarassed for even allowing it to continue. It's really a horrible stain on their otherwise generally good reputation.
The funny/sad thing about this is that Panorama is like an award-winning documentary compared to Fox News, and yet Fox New is increasingly being taken seriously as a news source in America.
Kidnap an orchestra?
Its not my view that its "Catastrophic" either. I'm simply stating that the view held can't be simplified to the point that it's only two astronauts who believe it, because they have stated it. In likely hood others may well agree with them and not say anything, for whatever reason
So, you're basically saying that there are astronauts out there who are cowards? Nobody worthy of that job would shy away from speaking out about something catastrophic.
I'm just glad that we live in a society where we can have individual points of view and are aloud to state them. Wether we agree with it or not.
Well, that's a given. I'm also glad that we can speak out when people say utterly stupid things like these astronauts did. I don't really see what the positive side of this story is - "two astronauts say dumb things" - and we are supposed to revel in the fact that people have the right to say dumb things?
My neighbor has the right to call people "niggers," but that doesn't make it any less pitiful that he decides to say that.
How is it easier? That means you have to calculate the average cost, and those percentage points required to stay profitable. It's much easier to charge for distance/time used.
I just could never say there is only two who believe that.
Really? Calling the current plans for NASA "catastrophic" is a very extreme view. I very much doubt any other astronauts would believe that. And again, if it truly is catastrophic, it is their duty to speak out about it.
Frankly, I don't see the catastrophe. It may or may not be the right decision, but what exactly is the catastrophe?
What about protecting free speech, and especially that speech with which you disagree?
When did the poster you were responding to ever claim that it shouldn't be protected free speech? All he said is that it wasn't patriotic.
Uhm. But you can get stuck in a traffic jam and pay a lot of money, even if you ride once a year.
That's exactly what I'm saying! Pay for the journey you take, not the journey of others. In this case, it's known as "bad luck."
When you drive your own car, does someone else pay for the extra gas consumed when you get stuck in a traffic jam? Does someone else compensate you for the time wasted? No. So why should that be the case with taxis?
I said "unless your bed is in the kitchen."
You don't think this gets factored into the price? Regular price from A to B might be $10. However, the taxi company sees that there is heavy construction along the route, not to mention it's rush hour and the main route tends to get jammed. So the quoted price to the customer might be $17 to accomodate.
That's not apparent from the post I was replying to, which claims a fixed rate.
Either way, regardless of how the taxi company figures it, doesn't mean it is fair on the taxi driver.
Perhaps the cabbie has the experience (and the incentive) to take this kind of contingency into account when quoting the price.
In the situation cited, the taxi company quotes a fixed-rate price, and the cabbie doesn't have any say in the matter.
I'm pretty sure that "average" implied "multiple journeys" in this context...
I'm sure it did, but how is that relevant? Why should the one person that travels infrequently suffer for the rest of the users?