> First, there is no reason to believe that we can built robots that can reproduce themselves.
What? This is exactly the technology humans are trying to reach! We're already a significant way down this path!!
> Second, there is no evidence that we or anyone else can build intelligent machines, as the original story seems to presuppose.
Nature did it. We can do it.
> Third, biological organisms are so many orders of magnitude more efficient and flexible than machines that it barely makes sense to put them into the same qualitative category "form of life".
This whole conversation is about extrapolating on the cosmic scale. If you look at the path robotics has taken in the last century it does, as pointed out, actually support the premise of this article.
> Hint: A human consumes only about 2.9 kilowatt hours per day, the equivalent of 1-2 light bulbs...
Not relevant. Once machines are replicating and repairing themselves they'll do exactly what we do and find other sources of energy.
Frankly I agree with you that it's hard to picture Transformers inhabiting the universe, but OP did make a really good point that extrapolation isn't even in the ballpark of refuting this clown. Honestly I'm shocked he didn't come back with that XKCD cartoon.
Thank you! You've given me reason to sit up and pay attention when 3 rolls around, I appreciate that.
I would recommend against showing the more diehard Photoshop fans that link, though. It won't get you anywhere because what it really needs to be is a list like this:
- GIMP has a plugin/feature for automatically generating normal maps from elevation data.
- GIMP has a perspective correction feature that is superior to Photoshops in that it...
- GIMP's 'save all layers' button saves all of the layers in your file into seperate files.
.. or something like that. In the list you gave me, points 1 through 4, and 7, are irrelevant if somebody already has Photoshop. Given its de-facto marketshare, that is likely.
5 is horribly overrated. Lots of artists can script, but few (if any) can make actual plugins or modify the source code. (Even if they do dig in to the code how do they maintain those features when a new version of GIMP comes along?) I do want to mention, though, that there's another reply to my original post that seems to have covered the scripting point. I haven't checked it out yet but given that scripting is something I do, I'm certainly interested in trying that out.
6 needs an extra line, something like: "its better than Photoshop's Batch feature because...."
10... actually this is a really good one. In fact, just before this thread started, I went and found the portable version and downloaded in. Why? Welp, if the scripting that Culture20 posted a link to turns out to be worthwhile for me, coupling that with a portable version of GIMP is *awesome*. What that means is I will be able to automate certain tasks AND keep a fresh install on my DropBox account so I can even use it off-site. This is 1 out of 9.5 (I gave partial credit to the source-code bit) and, as you can already see from other replies you've gotten, most are refutable.
I'm a little worried you might read my post and think that I'm trying to perpetuate the GIMP vs. Photoshop debate. I'm not, instead I'm trying to explain what needs to happen explanation-wise to get more Photoshop people to try GIMP out. I think there's this mentality that people should switch to GIMP and that's simply not true. If you got the professional Photoshop users to start using GIMP for certain tasks, you may find that some studios may find it worth their time to invest some development time into improving it. Given how Adobe has been dicking around with the licensing, this would be a good time to get that ball rolling. Start touting the unique features it has that shave man-hours off a project. If those features don't exist, then the team needs to start talking to people like me and finding out what else they need.
Care to run off a list of ways that "GIMP doesn't come close"? If it's really so bad, it shouldn't be that difficult to name at least a dozen or so... In actuality, I expect that enumerating the shortcomings of GIMP will not be in quantity, but in terms of a relatively small number of particularly desirable features that many may perceive as critically important in such software.
Hi, professional artist here. Your latter point, at least from my perspective, is correct. I know Photoshop really well, but since I make my living doing this work I am not biased in a way that'd prevent me from using a free tool. Let me be extra clear: It would hurt me to be fanboyishly loyal to be any particular app. I do pick up and mess with GIMP from time to time, but it has two critical omissions from Photoshop that make it unusable in my field. First, it lacks adjustment layers. Second, it lacks Smart Objects.
These are both features intended to do non-destructive editing of imagery. Let's say you have a tree with green leaves. You can create a Hue/Saturation 'adjustment layer' that will turn all the green pixels beneath it blue. If you put a picture of a different tree below that layer, its leaves would turn blue, too. If you took that tree and made it a 'smart object', you'd effectively be snapshotting that image and every operation you do causes it to regenerate itself. In other words, if you shrank a Smart Object down, then scaled it back up again, you'd get all its original detail back.
If you're creating imagery it doesn't take long for these two features to change your workflow in such a way that you gain a HUGE time savings. In fact I have created several templates to speed up the generation of images I do that I just plain cannot do in GIMP. Realistically speaking that is enough man-hours lost that I'd actually make a greater profit paying for Photoshop than I would saving the cost of the license in favor of GIMP.
With that said, I'd be *very* happy if you told me that version 3 would add these features. I'd also be very happy if somebody could tell me what GIMP does that Photoshop doesn't. It's free. if it shaves man-hours off my work, then load me up with the tips. I ain't gonna switch, but I ain't above using both.
Parent poster, despite his language, has a point. Real Player vs. Rhapsody is like QuickTime vs. iTunes... only without the dual-installer. The wrong post is being modded down.
I would just like to point out that the 20 percent number is a guess. It originated from a website that ran a poll and they came up with that number after they received the results. It wasn't scientific, and it wasn't based on anything like retail reports. Some people were given a chance to bitch and they did. The warranty is definitely compelling and definitely says there is a problem, but it is also worth noting that Sony has been deluged with so much bad press that it is not surprising they are trying to nip it as quickly as possible. The internet has gotten very noisy in the last couple of years, especially with regards to Sony. All bad news about any system has to be taken with a grain of salt. It is possible that is an admission of a nasty defect, but it is also possible it is MS making a PR move that helps deal with the noisy backlash and makes them look more customer friendly than Sony. Neither you nor I know. There are a lot of people with a chip on their shoulder out there, just waiting to strike. You should keep that in mind when you're presented with a sensationalist number like that.
As for the AC posting, do you really blame the guy for posting anonymously and going against popular opinion? Slashdot's moderation system is not friendly towards those with a different view.
"Anyone figured out how to turn off these silly backslash articles?"
Yes. When the word 'Slashback' appears, press down-arrow a few times. The 'Reply to this' link won't navigate you into any helpful configuration options.
"Does that mean one of the couple in the case of a "traditional" marriage (i.e. - one taking the other's name) is being dishonorable to their/their mate's parents?"
In my eyes, no. To me, that's like calling myself a life saver because I haven't killed anybody today. However, I'll concede that others may not agree with me on that. In that case, we could both find people that would agree with either of us.
"It would seem more logical to change the family name altogether (perhaps in such a way to include both family names) if honor was the case."
Erm, sorry man, I'm having trouble wrapping my head around that idea. Maybe I'm just stuck in my ways. I grew up hearing a lot of "my daddy, my daddy's daddy, my daddy's daddy's daddy..." stories. Shedding the family name feels like I'm saying "I don't want to be associated with you, dad."
Maybe I'm just not in tune with enough people to understand where you're coming from, but it is difficult for me to picture an uprising in popularity of what you're suggesting. That and we see women all the time identified along with their maiden name.
"I have always expected that there would be a movement where a man and woman get married and pick a new family name. It just seemed logical to me. Neither party has to take the other's name, and they also get to share a common family name which would symbolise the bond."
I have trouble picturing this. Part of the reason to take the family name is to honor the parents.
"Not to mention the die-hard nintendo fanbase that will buy only the Wii."
Us die-hard Nintendo fan boys don't necessarily buy Nintendo products exclusively. Unfortunately, it's hard to ignore games like GTA on the other systems.
(Note: This is not a rebuttal to your entire post, just a minor nitpick. Nintendo fanboys are not quite like other fanboys.)
"I'm so angry I can't even remember to close my italics tag."
Nice try, but the whole post was in italics, and yes the tag was closed.
"20 seconds? You don't give me much credit for being able to type at a reasonable speed."
Slashdot requires you to wait 20 seconds to post.
"Seriously, though, the "20 seconds" wasted on making a wise-assed remark about how I don't find the show to be very funny (and the additional seconds spent replying to you) pale in comparison to the 3 or 4 hours of TV viewing I spent trying very hard to give that show a fair chance, out of respect for the writers and voice talents involved."
So why not spend 20 seconds writing the letters instead of making snide comments intended to annoy the people who saw what you didn't see in it?
"It mostly suffered from the same disease as "The Critic" (the failed cartoon featuring the usually-funny Jon Lovitz), in that the writers seemed to think that (not so) obscure pop-culture references are automatically funny, even if they are not used to say anything funny or witty. The formula gets old very quickly."
I think you're confusing Futurama with Family Guy.
"So I ask again, not rhetorically, will it be funny this time around?"
It was funny the first time around. Don't feel bad, though, I didn't get Austin Powers the first time around.
"The people who pay for the site are the small fraction who actually go and buy whatever it is being shown. Without that fraction, advertisers see no return on their investment in ads, and would stop funding sites anyhow."
What you're saying isn't false, but it isn't strictly true, either. The customer in this case is not the people clicking on banners and buying something, it's the company with an ad they want people to see. Ultimately, yes, they want to get people to buy it. You're right in that they'd no longer purchase ad space if they spent money and didn't make money back. It's more complicated than that, though. A lot of companies simply throw up ads that are intended to be seen, but not necessarily clicked on. These are simply branding sort of ads, designed to raise awareness. They'll put these ads up, wait a year, and see how their sales have increased. (ThinkGeek or Newegg come to mind...) If they've gone up, more ads. Which leads me to this point:
"So a logical extension is that we all must buy junk we see advertised to support our favorite sites?"
No. If it only worked this way, web-based advertising would have died 5 years ago. Instead, you need only for the users who visit the site to be able to see an ad. In Slashdot's case, the Think Geek banner is always there. They're getting their money's worth because sooner or later, somebody's going to want something, and they'll realize that ThinkGeek's the place to check out. Slashdot, however, cannot possibly guarantee any sort of click-through-sales. (just like Television commercials...) So it's up to the advertiser to make their products worth buying. There'll ALWAYS be companies releasing products they want to advertise. So long as the ads aren't being blocked, they'll want to advertise on web-sites. It's the same with e-mail spam. It isn't necessary for millions of dollars to be spent on Viagara, it's only necessary that email be recieved.
So, no, supporting a site doesn't rely on gullible people buying stuff. It only relies on advertisers with products to sell. For that reason, your plan wouldn't likely work. Slashdot's probably making a lot more money off of advertising than they are from subscribers. That's downright hilarious considering that Microsoft is one of the advertisers. Heh.
I think I've encountered like 4 of these in the last 2 years. (LaTimes, WashingtonPost, NYT, and... one Portland I cannot remember the name of.) How many are you hitting?
"across however many computers you read your news on"
Why would you read this story, then go hopping to all your machines and logging in there, too? The answer is, you wouldn't. Again, don't be dramatic.
"times however often your cookies get cleared"
That's on you. Although it wouldn't be super difficult to come up with a simple username password. You've done it with Slashdot already, obviously this isn't such a huge inconvenience. It might take 30 seconds instead of 25 for this to work.
"times the small loss in privacy"
You can have that one.
"times the number of spam-target email addresses it's necessary to create"
Great, I get to repeat myself. These sites don't validate email addresses. Type. In. Garbage. Derr.
"times however many broken registration screens there are"
Wow, can't say I've ever seen that. Bad way to run a business, heh.
"Website administrators who think mandatory registration is a good idea are likely to be the sort of people I want to avoid anyway."
Fine, no problemo. I just have two questions:
1.) Why bitch about it on Slashdot?
2.) Were you aware that even though this link says 'post' in the domain, the link doesn't require login? Heh.
In any event, I'm not thrilled with reg-req sites, either. Is it really necessary to blow things out of proportion with them? We're all saavy web users here, let's not get creative about how inconvenient they are. "But but but I hate filling things out and remembering passwords, even though I frequent several web-forums!"
"That would be once for my laptop, once for my desktop system, once for my primary machine at work, once for the kiosk in the server room, twice for the kiosks in the lab..."
It'd be once for the machine you're reading the story on. Don't be dramatic.:P
"If I'm not willing to put up with the hassle for my local paper, I'm sure not going to bother for the West Bumfuck Tribune out of Idaho. CNN, Fox News(1), ABC News, even MSNBC aren't doing registrations, so guess who gets my traffic."
Okay... so you're unwilling to type in some garbage to get through the reg page, instead preferring to go hunting for the story (if it's even there) on one of the other 4 sites that you've mentioned.
You know, I can understand some of the annoyance here. I work across 3 different machines every day. I'm not oblvious to the problems you're mentioning. But, man, I just don't understand the panty-bunching about it on Slashdot. By the time you've spent that (minimum of) 20 seconds typing that comment, you would have been in already.
"That's not a portable! My laptop is heavy at 8lbs and it sucks to carry around with all of the gadgets and gizmos. Heck... even my SFF is lighter than 20 pounds."
It's a lot more portable than the case, kb, mouse, monitor, and speakers I have attached to it. Gotta put it into perspective. Some people read 'portable' as "I don't mind flying across the country with it", and some read it as "I can fold it up and take it to the office".
"I just don't see the point of getting a $1000 device that can only play 10 titles (no matter how high-definition the titles and/or the point may be)."
Perhaps not. I have to ask, though: Have you ever pre-purchased something? Waited in line for hours to see a movie? Purchased any computer related hardware the day it was released? If the answer to any of these questions is 'yes', then you really shouldn't be throwing any stones. I know I'm guilty. Everybody has their obsessions, and some have the means to lavishly explore them.
Slashdot Mirror
> First, there is no reason to believe that we can built robots that can reproduce themselves.
What? This is exactly the technology humans are trying to reach! We're already a significant way down this path!!
> Second, there is no evidence that we or anyone else can build intelligent machines, as the original story seems to presuppose.
Nature did it. We can do it.
> Third, biological organisms are so many orders of magnitude more efficient and flexible than machines that it barely makes sense to put them into the same qualitative category "form of life".
This whole conversation is about extrapolating on the cosmic scale. If you look at the path robotics has taken in the last century it does, as pointed out, actually support the premise of this article.
> Hint: A human consumes only about 2.9 kilowatt hours per day, the equivalent of 1-2 light bulbs ...
Not relevant. Once machines are replicating and repairing themselves they'll do exactly what we do and find other sources of energy.
Frankly I agree with you that it's hard to picture Transformers inhabiting the universe, but OP did make a really good point that extrapolation isn't even in the ballpark of refuting this clown. Honestly I'm shocked he didn't come back with that XKCD cartoon.
Just wanted to thank you for the links. I was especially pleased to find that Python is supported!
Thank you! You've given me reason to sit up and pay attention when 3 rolls around, I appreciate that.
I would recommend against showing the more diehard Photoshop fans that link, though. It won't get you anywhere because what it really needs to be is a list like this:
5 is horribly overrated. Lots of artists can script, but few (if any) can make actual plugins or modify the source code. (Even if they do dig in to the code how do they maintain those features when a new version of GIMP comes along?) I do want to mention, though, that there's another reply to my original post that seems to have covered the scripting point. I haven't checked it out yet but given that scripting is something I do, I'm certainly interested in trying that out.
6 needs an extra line, something like: "its better than Photoshop's Batch feature because...."
10... actually this is a really good one. In fact, just before this thread started, I went and found the portable version and downloaded in. Why? Welp, if the scripting that Culture20 posted a link to turns out to be worthwhile for me, coupling that with a portable version of GIMP is *awesome*. What that means is I will be able to automate certain tasks AND keep a fresh install on my DropBox account so I can even use it off-site. This is 1 out of 9.5 (I gave partial credit to the source-code bit) and, as you can already see from other replies you've gotten, most are refutable.
I'm a little worried you might read my post and think that I'm trying to perpetuate the GIMP vs. Photoshop debate. I'm not, instead I'm trying to explain what needs to happen explanation-wise to get more Photoshop people to try GIMP out. I think there's this mentality that people should switch to GIMP and that's simply not true. If you got the professional Photoshop users to start using GIMP for certain tasks, you may find that some studios may find it worth their time to invest some development time into improving it. Given how Adobe has been dicking around with the licensing, this would be a good time to get that ball rolling. Start touting the unique features it has that shave man-hours off a project. If those features don't exist, then the team needs to start talking to people like me and finding out what else they need.
Hi, professional artist here. Your latter point, at least from my perspective, is correct. I know Photoshop really well, but since I make my living doing this work I am not biased in a way that'd prevent me from using a free tool. Let me be extra clear: It would hurt me to be fanboyishly loyal to be any particular app. I do pick up and mess with GIMP from time to time, but it has two critical omissions from Photoshop that make it unusable in my field. First, it lacks adjustment layers. Second, it lacks Smart Objects.
These are both features intended to do non-destructive editing of imagery. Let's say you have a tree with green leaves. You can create a Hue/Saturation 'adjustment layer' that will turn all the green pixels beneath it blue. If you put a picture of a different tree below that layer, its leaves would turn blue, too. If you took that tree and made it a 'smart object', you'd effectively be snapshotting that image and every operation you do causes it to regenerate itself. In other words, if you shrank a Smart Object down, then scaled it back up again, you'd get all its original detail back.
If you're creating imagery it doesn't take long for these two features to change your workflow in such a way that you gain a HUGE time savings. In fact I have created several templates to speed up the generation of images I do that I just plain cannot do in GIMP. Realistically speaking that is enough man-hours lost that I'd actually make a greater profit paying for Photoshop than I would saving the cost of the license in favor of GIMP.
With that said, I'd be *very* happy if you told me that version 3 would add these features. I'd also be very happy if somebody could tell me what GIMP does that Photoshop doesn't. It's free. if it shaves man-hours off my work, then load me up with the tips. I ain't gonna switch, but I ain't above using both.
I'm no fan of the RIAA either, but can we keep this "it's a jihad!" bullshit out of this? (Score:1, Troll)
Asking to show a little class is not trolling.
Parent poster, despite his language, has a point. Real Player vs. Rhapsody is like QuickTime vs. iTunes... only without the dual-installer. The wrong post is being modded down.
I would just like to point out that the 20 percent number is a guess. It originated from a website that ran a poll and they came up with that number after they received the results. It wasn't scientific, and it wasn't based on anything like retail reports. Some people were given a chance to bitch and they did. The warranty is definitely compelling and definitely says there is a problem, but it is also worth noting that Sony has been deluged with so much bad press that it is not surprising they are trying to nip it as quickly as possible. The internet has gotten very noisy in the last couple of years, especially with regards to Sony. All bad news about any system has to be taken with a grain of salt. It is possible that is an admission of a nasty defect, but it is also possible it is MS making a PR move that helps deal with the noisy backlash and makes them look more customer friendly than Sony. Neither you nor I know. There are a lot of people with a chip on their shoulder out there, just waiting to strike. You should keep that in mind when you're presented with a sensationalist number like that.
As for the AC posting, do you really blame the guy for posting anonymously and going against popular opinion? Slashdot's moderation system is not friendly towards those with a different view.
> I bought a ps3. I still have it.
Is your name Dave...?
Hey bub, you gotta prob with nano prefixes?
. -- THIS is a knife!
"Anyone figured out how to turn off these silly backslash articles?"
Yes. When the word 'Slashback' appears, press down-arrow a few times. The 'Reply to this' link won't navigate you into any helpful configuration options.
"How in the world do they justify that?"
Lots of people willingly paying for it.
"Does that mean one of the couple in the case of a "traditional" marriage (i.e. - one taking the other's name) is being dishonorable to their/their mate's parents?"
In my eyes, no. To me, that's like calling myself a life saver because I haven't killed anybody today. However, I'll concede that others may not agree with me on that. In that case, we could both find people that would agree with either of us.
"It would seem more logical to change the family name altogether (perhaps in such a way to include both family names) if honor was the case."
Erm, sorry man, I'm having trouble wrapping my head around that idea. Maybe I'm just stuck in my ways. I grew up hearing a lot of "my daddy, my daddy's daddy, my daddy's daddy's daddy..." stories. Shedding the family name feels like I'm saying "I don't want to be associated with you, dad."
Maybe I'm just not in tune with enough people to understand where you're coming from, but it is difficult for me to picture an uprising in popularity of what you're suggesting. That and we see women all the time identified along with their maiden name.
"I have always expected that there would be a movement where a man and woman get married and pick a new family name. It just seemed logical to me. Neither party has to take the other's name, and they also get to share a common family name which would symbolise the bond."
I have trouble picturing this. Part of the reason to take the family name is to honor the parents.
"Not to mention the die-hard nintendo fanbase that will buy only the Wii."
Us die-hard Nintendo fan boys don't necessarily buy Nintendo products exclusively. Unfortunately, it's hard to ignore games like GTA on the other systems.
(Note: This is not a rebuttal to your entire post, just a minor nitpick. Nintendo fanboys are not quite like other fanboys.)
"*puts on the computer, covers one eye, and shouts "Look at me! I'm Leela!"
*Covers both eyes*
I'm double Leela!
*Runs into a wall.*
"So why not spend 20 seconds writing the letters instead of making snide comments intended to annoy the people who saw what you didn't see in it?"
That was supposed to read "writing letters to the writers". Sorry.
"I'm so angry I can't even remember to close my italics tag."
Nice try, but the whole post was in italics, and yes the tag was closed.
"20 seconds? You don't give me much credit for being able to type at a reasonable speed."
Slashdot requires you to wait 20 seconds to post.
"Seriously, though, the "20 seconds" wasted on making a wise-assed remark about how I don't find the show to be very funny (and the additional seconds spent replying to you) pale in comparison to the 3 or 4 hours of TV viewing I spent trying very hard to give that show a fair chance, out of respect for the writers and voice talents involved."
So why not spend 20 seconds writing the letters instead of making snide comments intended to annoy the people who saw what you didn't see in it?
"It mostly suffered from the same disease as "The Critic" (the failed cartoon featuring the usually-funny Jon Lovitz), in that the writers seemed to think that (not so) obscure pop-culture references are automatically funny, even if they are not used to say anything funny or witty. The formula gets old very quickly."
I think you're confusing Futurama with Family Guy.
"So I ask again, not rhetorically, will it be funny this time around?"
It was funny the first time around. Don't feel bad, though, I didn't get Austin Powers the first time around.
"The people who pay for the site are the small fraction who actually go and buy whatever it is being shown. Without that fraction, advertisers see no return on their investment in ads, and would stop funding sites anyhow."
What you're saying isn't false, but it isn't strictly true, either. The customer in this case is not the people clicking on banners and buying something, it's the company with an ad they want people to see. Ultimately, yes, they want to get people to buy it. You're right in that they'd no longer purchase ad space if they spent money and didn't make money back. It's more complicated than that, though. A lot of companies simply throw up ads that are intended to be seen, but not necessarily clicked on. These are simply branding sort of ads, designed to raise awareness. They'll put these ads up, wait a year, and see how their sales have increased. (ThinkGeek or Newegg come to mind...) If they've gone up, more ads. Which leads me to this point:
"So a logical extension is that we all must buy junk we see advertised to support our favorite sites?"
No. If it only worked this way, web-based advertising would have died 5 years ago. Instead, you need only for the users who visit the site to be able to see an ad. In Slashdot's case, the Think Geek banner is always there. They're getting their money's worth because sooner or later, somebody's going to want something, and they'll realize that ThinkGeek's the place to check out. Slashdot, however, cannot possibly guarantee any sort of click-through-sales. (just like Television commercials...) So it's up to the advertiser to make their products worth buying. There'll ALWAYS be companies releasing products they want to advertise. So long as the ads aren't being blocked, they'll want to advertise on web-sites. It's the same with e-mail spam. It isn't necessary for millions of dollars to be spent on Viagara, it's only necessary that email be recieved.
So, no, supporting a site doesn't rely on gullible people buying stuff. It only relies on advertisers with products to sell. For that reason, your plan wouldn't likely work. Slashdot's probably making a lot more money off of advertising than they are from subscribers. That's downright hilarious considering that Microsoft is one of the advertisers. Heh.
"It's not 20 seconds, it's 2 minutes..."
I just timed myself doing it, took 25 seconds.
"...times however news sites you read..."
I think I've encountered like 4 of these in the last 2 years. (LaTimes, WashingtonPost, NYT, and... one Portland I cannot remember the name of.) How many are you hitting?
"across however many computers you read your news on"
Why would you read this story, then go hopping to all your machines and logging in there, too? The answer is, you wouldn't. Again, don't be dramatic.
"times however often your cookies get cleared"
That's on you. Although it wouldn't be super difficult to come up with a simple username password. You've done it with Slashdot already, obviously this isn't such a huge inconvenience. It might take 30 seconds instead of 25 for this to work.
"times the small loss in privacy"
You can have that one.
"times the number of spam-target email addresses it's necessary to create"
Great, I get to repeat myself. These sites don't validate email addresses. Type. In. Garbage. Derr.
"times however many broken registration screens there are"
Wow, can't say I've ever seen that. Bad way to run a business, heh.
"Website administrators who think mandatory registration is a good idea are likely to be the sort of people I want to avoid anyway."
Fine, no problemo. I just have two questions:
1.) Why bitch about it on Slashdot?
2.) Were you aware that even though this link says 'post' in the domain, the link doesn't require login? Heh.
In any event, I'm not thrilled with reg-req sites, either. Is it really necessary to blow things out of proportion with them? We're all saavy web users here, let's not get creative about how inconvenient they are. "But but but I hate filling things out and remembering passwords, even though I frequent several web-forums!"
"That would be once for my laptop, once for my desktop system, once for my primary machine at work, once for the kiosk in the server room, twice for the kiosks in the lab..."
:P
It'd be once for the machine you're reading the story on. Don't be dramatic.
"If I'm not willing to put up with the hassle for my local paper, I'm sure not going to bother for the West Bumfuck Tribune out of Idaho. CNN, Fox News(1), ABC News, even MSNBC aren't doing registrations, so guess who gets my traffic."
Okay... so you're unwilling to type in some garbage to get through the reg page, instead preferring to go hunting for the story (if it's even there) on one of the other 4 sites that you've mentioned.
You know, I can understand some of the annoyance here. I work across 3 different machines every day. I'm not oblvious to the problems you're mentioning. But, man, I just don't understand the panty-bunching about it on Slashdot. By the time you've spent that (minimum of) 20 seconds typing that comment, you would have been in already.
"(thought I was going to be getting a pen discussion until I read past the headline) (Score:3, Interesting):
Erm... did somebody with a mod point just admit to not reading past the headline? Heh.
"I would start reading them. Instead, I keep going back to the BBC."
:P
Yeesh, you only gotta do it once. They don't even validate the email address. That's what cookies are for, lazypants.
"That's not a portable! My laptop is heavy at 8lbs and it sucks to carry around with all of the gadgets and gizmos. Heck... even my SFF is lighter than 20 pounds."
It's a lot more portable than the case, kb, mouse, monitor, and speakers I have attached to it. Gotta put it into perspective. Some people read 'portable' as "I don't mind flying across the country with it", and some read it as "I can fold it up and take it to the office".
"Re:Dupe..."
:)
Dupe!!"
You didn't leetly search enough.
"I just don't see the point of getting a $1000 device that can only play 10 titles (no matter how high-definition the titles and/or the point may be)."
Perhaps not. I have to ask, though: Have you ever pre-purchased something? Waited in line for hours to see a movie? Purchased any computer related hardware the day it was released? If the answer to any of these questions is 'yes', then you really shouldn't be throwing any stones. I know I'm guilty. Everybody has their obsessions, and some have the means to lavishly explore them.