I don't think the distinction is as clean as you make it out to be.
Lots of science fiction posits "laws of nature" which don't exist IRL, which are ill- or partly-understood, which are nonetheless exploited by technology.
Conversely, fantasy worlds often contain characters like "wizards" or "sorcerors" who have some degree of understanding or competency in these supposedly ineffable natural forces, and it's a common trope that competition drives these wizards to try and exceed one another's mastery of these forces.
In both cases, the magic derives from some combination of human effort and made-up laws of nature. Unless you're taking the hardassed position that sci-fi is only that fiction which is consistent with the current understanding of the laws of physics, and which doesn't propose any new discoveries of any kind, in which case I'm against you anyway.
If it's a rental only? I'd expect a (significant) further discount again
For a digital copy I don't even get to keep, well, I'd expect not to have to pay. The "watch this but don't keep a copy" model has been ad-supported on aerial TV for decades, and on YouTube for the better part of one. What makes them think they deserve any customers by stepping back onto a pay-per-play system? And isn't this the kind of shit that DRM alarmists were diligently warning everyone about back in 2003?
I mean, the Cold War is over, and if this was a Soviet building, the government which built it no longer exists. What's so damn hard about convincing the Russian gov't to be as curious about this as we are?
It's weird that you'd consider it Darwinism when someone dies due to something like "foolishness", which arises from behavioural and mental factors far too complex to be genetically deterministic or inborn, but a disability like blindness, which in many cases is very simply congenital, isn't relevant to the gene pool.
I don't know if this is fair. Certainly there have been people in history who did natural science as part of a practice grounded in Christian theology, but I don't know that Christianity has ever had a hand in the part of science which, well, makes it science.
That is to say, there have been plenty of early scientists who were motivated by the conviction that they were exploring and understanding the Almighty's handiwork, in addition to the more practical advantages associated with understanding nature, but I don't think there's much reason to believe that Christianity has ever informed the practice of science beyond that. When people have used their faith on the "what" of science, rather than merely the "why", they've pretty consistently gotten it wrong.
You can hit a home run for Jesus, or for your own notoriety as a baseball player, or just for love of the game, but regardless of your reason, the specifics of where you should swing the bat and when, depend entirely on the pitch. If you're not just swinging the bat for Jesus, but also relying his advice about where to swing, you're gonna strike out.
" Is metered bandwidth better for providers? For consumers?"
Yes, because it will align the ISP's profit motive with their "responsibilities" toward their customers.
It's common to refer to the alternative as "all-you-can-eat" bandwidth, and the comparison is apt. Consider the restauranteur who operates a buffet, and the careful balance of marketing and psychology he must strike in order to maximize his profits. To maximize income, he wants to get as many asses into the seats as possible - but to minimize his costs, he wants as few of those as possible to be really big eaters. He can't very well put a sign on the door saying "gluttons unwelcome", so instead he'll probably try to create an environment where unlimited eating is "allowed" but is discouraged in every way he can manage without giving the customer cause to claim they're not getting what they were promised for the money. So they'll manage the thermostat and the humidistat to make people less hungry, they'll make sure the buffet layout takes you past the cheap, plentiful items first to take up plate-space (maybe even keeping these items fresher), they'll spend extra effort to make sure everyone's water glass is full, and so forth.
In both games, the objective is the same: To give prospective customers the idea that they can take all they want, and then do whatever you can get away with to prevent that from happening. If the restauranteur was instead charging a flat per-gram rate, uniformly marked-up from the ingredient and cooking costs, they'd behave differently.
Welcome, patent trolls, to the Slashdot comments section! Allow me to introduce the Brown Rope trolls, the Hot Grits trolls, and the n-word trolls. I'm sure you'll all get along famously.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly.
I don't think the distinction is as clean as you make it out to be.
Lots of science fiction posits "laws of nature" which don't exist IRL, which are ill- or partly-understood, which are nonetheless exploited by technology.
Conversely, fantasy worlds often contain characters like "wizards" or "sorcerors" who have some degree of understanding or competency in these supposedly ineffable natural forces, and it's a common trope that competition drives these wizards to try and exceed one another's mastery of these forces.
In both cases, the magic derives from some combination of human effort and made-up laws of nature. Unless you're taking the hardassed position that sci-fi is only that fiction which is consistent with the current understanding of the laws of physics, and which doesn't propose any new discoveries of any kind, in which case I'm against you anyway.
The difference doesn't exist. Science fiction is fantasy. Weather is a magic carpet
Magic? But isn't Sci-Fi mainly stories about...
That might be why the associated community is engaged in a massive campaign to rebrand itself as "Speculative Fiction".
I think you must've been! C'mon out of your vault, the war is long over and we all use nano now.
If it's a rental only? I'd expect a (significant) further discount again
For a digital copy I don't even get to keep, well, I'd expect not to have to pay. The "watch this but don't keep a copy" model has been ad-supported on aerial TV for decades, and on YouTube for the better part of one. What makes them think they deserve any customers by stepping back onto a pay-per-play system? And isn't this the kind of shit that DRM alarmists were diligently warning everyone about back in 2003?
By an odd coincidence...
http://achewood.com/
"...which for some reason they could only accomplish under the leadership of a white man saviour."
Dammit Ray, not this shit again.
And the reasons for that are totally relevant to why it remains illegal to this day.
Not to mention the ability to occasionally write like Shakespeare.
Nobody can explain Fox News either.
Nobody can explain CNN either.
Fixed
The news networks? Yes, they certainly are.
I mean, the Cold War is over, and if this was a Soviet building, the government which built it no longer exists. What's so damn hard about convincing the Russian gov't to be as curious about this as we are?
Yankee hotel foxtrot.
It's weird that you'd consider it Darwinism when someone dies due to something like "foolishness", which arises from behavioural and mental factors far too complex to be genetically deterministic or inborn, but a disability like blindness, which in many cases is very simply congenital, isn't relevant to the gene pool.
Seems kinda backward.
I'm ridin' spinners.
will sport an HD screen for video,
Why do people always specify this? I want to know where I can buy an audio HD screen.
"hot box"
I don't know if this is fair. Certainly there have been people in history who did natural science as part of a practice grounded in Christian theology, but I don't know that Christianity has ever had a hand in the part of science which, well, makes it science.
That is to say, there have been plenty of early scientists who were motivated by the conviction that they were exploring and understanding the Almighty's handiwork, in addition to the more practical advantages associated with understanding nature, but I don't think there's much reason to believe that Christianity has ever informed the practice of science beyond that. When people have used their faith on the "what" of science, rather than merely the "why", they've pretty consistently gotten it wrong.
You can hit a home run for Jesus, or for your own notoriety as a baseball player, or just for love of the game, but regardless of your reason, the specifics of where you should swing the bat and when, depend entirely on the pitch. If you're not just swinging the bat for Jesus, but also relying his advice about where to swing, you're gonna strike out.
It's a pretty common trope to intentionally mix up these words for comic effect.
Bloop, ping!
" Is metered bandwidth better for providers? For consumers?"
Yes, because it will align the ISP's profit motive with their "responsibilities" toward their customers.
It's common to refer to the alternative as "all-you-can-eat" bandwidth, and the comparison is apt. Consider the restauranteur who operates a buffet, and the careful balance of marketing and psychology he must strike in order to maximize his profits. To maximize income, he wants to get as many asses into the seats as possible - but to minimize his costs, he wants as few of those as possible to be really big eaters. He can't very well put a sign on the door saying "gluttons unwelcome", so instead he'll probably try to create an environment where unlimited eating is "allowed" but is discouraged in every way he can manage without giving the customer cause to claim they're not getting what they were promised for the money. So they'll manage the thermostat and the humidistat to make people less hungry, they'll make sure the buffet layout takes you past the cheap, plentiful items first to take up plate-space (maybe even keeping these items fresher), they'll spend extra effort to make sure everyone's water glass is full, and so forth.
In both games, the objective is the same: To give prospective customers the idea that they can take all they want, and then do whatever you can get away with to prevent that from happening.
If the restauranteur was instead charging a flat per-gram rate, uniformly marked-up from the ingredient and cooking costs, they'd behave differently.
Welcome, patent trolls, to the Slashdot comments section! Allow me to introduce the Brown Rope trolls, the Hot Grits trolls, and the n-word trolls. I'm sure you'll all get along famously.
But it wasn't an important part of the poster's comment.
All the more reason not to include it.
If their resignation bears a date later than the actual date of termination, how is the resignation legally cromulent in any way?