Recent Comments

Whatever Nokia 3310 is running :-)

Apparently it was the EFF that shot that down.

I have several devices which all use 4.2.2

ballet stuffing time!

I ... clicked Settingsthen Morethen About Device
Righteo. All good. So, why isn't the 'About Device' in the 'My Device' tab?
Samsung can be very strange sometimes.

This is something about those hippy white phones with a screen like a walled garden right?

I know who I think is daft...

Most calling themselves Christians are actually not Christians. They just have their names written into the church books as that might benefit them somehow. Or because they falsly believe they are saved if they just are in the church books (and not living a Christian life). Christians are called Christians because they do follow the example of Christ. Their motivation for doing this is their love towards God and the people around them. Most however do no effort nor having that love.

Now if you take true Christians, the poll is very obvious. A true Christian would never lie as that did not their master (Christ). Also the commandments given by Christ would forbid them to lie. They would thus do their very best to avoid any lie. Jesus also told his followers to treat other in the way they want to be treated themselves. Nobody would want to be led into wrong direction by false result, thus they would do their very best to avoid mistakes. The Bible also say everything we do we do it for God, so a true Christian would try to be as dilligent as possible in order to do as much as possible for his beloved God.

Real film lent a grittiness to the movie that meshed well with the story and desperation and it would be impossible to replicate that with digital.

Impossible to replicate? Are you daft? You could easily transfer a digital print to film, then digitize the film... And that's the hard way. Easy way is to push the button on your digital processing suite that says "film grain".

• Church of the SubGenius
• Discordianism
• Flying Spaghetti Monster
• ...

Personally I only trust what the Invisible Pink Unicorn tells me. I mean, if you can't believe an Invisible Pink Unicorn, what can you believe?!

IMAX didn't kill film. Film is *expensive* and *heavy* and a huge pain in the ass to do anything with. Don't get me wrong, I love film, I was a projectionist for 4 years while in college, but I can tell you from plenty of first hand experience how much of a giant pain in the ass it is to do anything with film. Just to show a single movie I would need to put in probably about one "running length" of time before the movie even started to prep the film. Compare to a digital set up where you just go download an press a button. It's no big surprise that's winning out over film.

For what it's worth, I saw Interstellar yesterday in 35mm at a local theater (no one is showing 70mm IMAX around :() and I thought it looked great, much better than many of the digital movies I've seen lately. Real film lent a grittiness to the movie that meshed well with the story and desperation and it would be impossible to replicate that with digital. Of course, it also sucked when the sound cut out for 30 seconds during one scene because there was no way to rewind it, but oh well.

I will never pay to see a 3D movie as I only have one eye. Queue the cyclops jokes.

I suppose IMAX is to blame... Trying to squeeze more money out of their customers, they introduced "IMAX Digital" so they could show just any regular film nice and cheap, but charge IMAX prices for the ticket. Angering your customers who are paying big bucks and keeping film alive, is a losing propsition.

http://welivefilm.com/opinion-imax-digital-vs-cinemark-xd-by-delon-villanueva/

Another negative is the move to 3D. Whether you like 3D or not, it has divided audiences in half... Some won't ever watch a 3D movie, others won't pay to watch the regular 2D versions anymore.

But I suppose as long as IMAX and Cinemark XD are able to demand huge ticket prices, and fill their theatres, film won't be going away just yet.

I suspect they had insurance, but considering the MAFIAA, they probably sued to poor fool to death.

My ex-flatmates worked at a movie theatre. During the 1990s, one special needs guy broke into their projector room and set off the fire extinguishers, which destroyed all the exposed film (I seem to recall being told that it dissolved the film), hundreds of thousands of dollars of damage I was told, plus badly damaged their projectors. (The projectors were el cheapo, also destroying film reels frequently.)

Something only slightly relevant that I thought I'd share...

From the linked YouTube video:

The print of Interstellar is 49 reels, weighs about 600 pounds, on a 72 inch platter.

No wonder they like the digital setups - soooo much easier for everyone involved - just not as jaw-droppingly cool.

Unfortunately, the FCC's proposal specifically only applies to "linear" video services... I.E. real-time continuous broadcasts.

That's some strange way of legislatively foisting the technological limitations of 1920s radio technology, upon the unsuspecting internet, where it makes no sense at all. Do you really want Netflix to look like cable, where there are channels just playing repeats of Law & Order every day, around-the-clock?

Broadcast video only makes sense for breaking news, sports, and just a few other live and ephemeral events. Otherwise, people have been spending money on DVRs and services like Netflix/Hulu and OnDemand for DECADES, trying hard specifically to rid themselves of such "appointment TV" limitations.

Of course the possibility is that once internet video services get their foot in the door, court challenges will later allow them to do OnDemand like their cable TV brethren. And perhaps the laws allowing the FCC to regulate the likes of Aereo, Netflix and Hulu to ensure their software isn't anti-competitive and excluding people.

But things might go the other way, too, with internet video services only getting a fair deal with linear video, and the current trend of on-demand binge watching slowly fading away, or perhaps being the domain of only proper cable TV services, without the government oversight to impose CableCard compatibility so consumers can buy DVRs for these new services, as we reminisce about the "good old days" before the FCC killed-off time-shifting (they tried to do so, before, with the "broadcast flag" rules)...

No I laugh at when I see people who believe the crazy stuff the Onion says.
I die a little bit when I see people who believe the crazy stuff that Fox News says.

I'm guessing it's specified as a radius. So 2km from the broadcast tower in a 360 degree pattern.

You may not be able to but I can. I tar all muslims with the same brush. Having read their book and interacted with a great number of them I have no illusions or delusions about what they, as a group or singularly, are capable of.

Perhaps we will get to the point where we can evolve past the need for religion. This is unlikely to occur anytime soon. Meanwhile, WIRM is an option.

Once upon a time, throwing up ancient ri©gime, people (tried to) establish a state body called governement to enforce their common good.
Today, governement try to impose his own agenda to the same people...
From oligarchy to democracy to oligarchy!
Time to try another round?

I hate this phrase. It has a folksy, common-sense ring of truth, so it is popular, but it is dangerous. It is exactly the wrong kind of "cynical," designed to keep people in line and to short-circuit thinking.

Who on this site is a fan of that?

The phrase suitable for no one except the intellectually lacking or lazy, full stop. Fuck that.

Let us hear out these wacky theories and dismantle them properly, with evidence and reason.

Reasonable people know that there is a hierarchy of rights. With civil rights and liberties on top. And one civil liberty is the right to privacy. So, if you can enforce copyright without violating the privacy of the whole population just because they could illegally download a movie... more power to you. If not... tough luck. The internet changes things just like the printing press did. Some benefit, other go the way of the Dodo.

And your

"No don't protect people's lives, I want free stuff".

is an evil strawman argument, since I previously said, that if a general internet surveillance really prevents terrorism and loss of life, it would be the sensible thing to do.

No, that's what reasonable people will conclude from your argument. It sounds very selfish. Its not a good argument.

An even more critical interpretation:

"No don't protect people's lives, I want free stuff".

I don't know exactly what TFA means by that, so I can't correct it.

Obviously two SQUARE kilometers would be a measurement of area. But when talking about broadcasting, measurements are generally made as the radius from the antenna, which could be a considerably different area.

Do you understand how terrible that argument sounds?

And how terrible is it when it is true?

"They aren't protecting us from terrorists, they're trying to make us pay for movies and music! We want them for free!"

You added "We want them for free". I never said that. But yes, if I have to choose between free movies, or a necessary police state to enforce copyrights, I know what I choose.

Even in a probabilistic sense, I could argue that an atheist's strongly held belief would be matched by the religious observer's strongly held belief, and in that way would have the two would have the same probability to lie.

This poll, though probably just for light amusement and discussion, brings up many questions about the philosophy of science. Science is a human endeavor and as such is very much limited to how the world is perceived by humans. There will always be bias, not all of it intentional. Data has no bias, though, so reproducibility is very important before putting too much stock in an observation.

Do you understand how terrible that argument sounds?

This is how your argument sounds:

"They aren't protecting us from terrorists, they're trying to make us pay for movies and music! We want them for free!"

Maybe that's what you really believe, but you aren't going to get much support from the populace with it.

Kilometers are a measure of distance. But could 'two kilometers in area' mean the same as square kilometers? My English is by far not good enough, to decide this. :-)

Are you asking what your goal is? Or what the government's goal is?

What the government's goal is.

I also assume that the government is actually acting in good faith, in attempting to prevent terrorism.

Ok. I don't believe this. I just think they are paid by the content industry. 100% in line with SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, TPP or whatever the acronym of the day is.

You first replied to me: "You started off so beautifully...."
I wrote that Mr Hannigan is an extremist. Everyone who tries to erode civil rights is an extremist. This makes only sense with the second part, that all this is mainly done for copyright protection. Because if there really were a noticeable number of terror acts yearly with a high number of victims, and if internet surveillance really were a viable tool to prevent such terrorism, it would be a sensible thing to do and he would not be an extremist. The extremist part is that he tries to erode the civil and constitutional rights of millions for the protection of the profit of a few.

You're talking about BILLIONS of people. Call me old fashioned, but I don't think you can paint people with that broad of a brush.

And I said: There is no Christian, Muslim, or Buddhist hive mind. Cheating is always done by an individual.

Also, I don't think Religious belief is a separate category from other closely held beliefs. Try talking science to the crazy anti GMO or anti Vaccine crowd and see how far you get.

But I agree with you here. First crazy anti GMO or anti Vaccine crowd are not necessarily atheists. And second even if they are, it does not mean that they cannot be stupid. There are enough pseudo-atheists, which are 'proud' not to believe in a god, but happily replaced god with some other mumbo-jumbo. Stupidity is not bound to a certain religious belief.

First, I don't see any statistics. Is that an omission or is it a bias?

Neither nor. If you have two groups where one group can do more or has the incentive to do more, then there will be done more in this group. Good or bad. My hypothesis is that the group of religious people have one incentive more to cheat, which atheists don't have: To defend their believe. This has nothing to do with statistics? If you don't like the term 'statistic' in this context, what about 'theory of probability'?

Also your comment seems to have gone from believing research results from these groups to just a general "what religious people say."

Perhaps, but does it matter? I could also claim that the question was too imprecise. What kind of research? I doubt religious people have any reason to manipulate the latest semi-conductor research results, or lie about the environmental effects of fracking any more than atheists. So, maybe I was in error to interpret it as 'research results, which in any way affect their believe system'. IMHO any other question does not really make sense.

That technically isn't what was asked, and the result is over generalized.

Technically not, true. But over generalized? Perhaps generalized, but certainly not over generalized.

I believe kilometers are a measure of distance, not area.

No. We laugh "WITH" the Onion. We laugh "AT" Fox News :)

You're talking about BILLIONS of people. Call me old fashioned, but I don't think you can paint people with that broad of a brush.

Also, I don't think Religious belief is a separate category from other closely held beliefs. Try talking science to the crazy anti GMO or anti Vaccine crowd and see how far you get.

Are you asking what your goal is? Or what the government's goal is?

I assumed that your goal was to have less internet surveillance.

I also assume that the government is actually acting in good faith, in attempting to prevent terrorism. You might not believe that, but I still think that's largely true. The intelligence agencies were mercilessly criticized for not knowing or acting on tips prior to 911. Of course having that much unchecked power leads to abuses,which is why we need to reduce their powers and add meaningful checks, balances and accountability.

exactly! these people who want to weaken their whole country's security(or related economy) are the real terrorists and are traitors and should be prosecuted as such.

I see two fallacies in the statement: "So statistically one should be more careful about what religious people say." First, I don't see any statistics. Is that an omission or is it a bias? Also your comment seems to have gone from believing research results from these groups to just a general "what religious people say." That technically isn't what was asked, and the result is over generalized.

Please feel free to throw in statistics and maybe narrow down the focus just to the question at hand. You can't fight bullshit with bullshit.

Any by what process, pray, did you find this to be self-evident and universal?

For an atheist rationality is important, not dogma.

What's important to an atheist is entirely dependent on the individual, no?

Sure. There might be some, who call themselves atheist, but don't really know what this means.

Atheist just means they don't believe in god, or that they believe there is no god.

Yes, atheists come like all other groups in great variety. Some are smart, some are dumb. Some did think through what they believe, others just slap the atheist label on themselves. It is true, no atheist believes in god. However, only the simpler minded ones actively believe that there is no god. When a theist says 'There is a god' and the atheist says 'There is no good', both make an affirmative statement, which they have to prove. People, who make claims, have to prove these claims. The real atheist never says that there is no god, he just demands proves from the theist.

And this is not the same as agnosticism. As I wrote before: For an agnostic the question cannot be decided. For an atheist this question does not even exist.

It says nothing of how 'important' they consider this to be.

It does. Atheism is a certain state of mind. Not believing in a god, because there is no positive proof that there is one, is only a part of this. True atheists also don't believe in the Easter bunny, Santa Claus, or Russell's teapot. And a true atheist would immediately change his mind the very second he gets new informations, which prove that god, the Easter bunny, Santa Claus, or Russell's teapot exist. Atheism is less about believe, it is about dogmas. Atheists should be free of them, therefore it should not matter to them, if there is a god or not. Atheism is not a religion, but actively believing, that there is no god, is.

This is another difference between religion and atheism: Since religion is practically based on nothing, you can never say: 'You got it wrong'. At best it can be said that one got a certain 'colour' of religion wrong. For atheism there are no different colours. And one can get atheism wrong.

Since there isn't anything to 're-hide' for atheists

->

That's complete nonsense. There are a huge number of religious artifacts out there. Nothing that proves the existence of an all-powerful being, of course, but lots and lots of artifacts none-the-less.

Your argument makes no sense. While there are lots of religious artifacts out there, atheist scientists have no interest in hiding them. As you said yourself, they do not prove the existence of god so why hide them? Even more they may have historical significance so not hiding them makes even more sense for a scientist.

But I can easily see a religious scientist hiding a religious artifact. For them religious artifacts may signify a proof of a deity which is great news if it is a proof for their God. But what if it is not...

Nevertheless, for an atheist it is not important that there is not a god.

Any by what process, pray, did you find this to be self-evident and universal?

What's important to an atheist is entirely dependent on the individual, no? Atheist just means they don't believe in god, or that they believe there is no god. It says nothing of how 'important' they consider this to be.

Your particular position on the spectrum is not the textbook definition of the term, nor typical of all adherents. In fact what you've described is closer to agnostic than atheist.

I expected something like that. But no. An agnostic says it cannot be decided whether there exists a god or not. For an atheist there is not enough supporting evidence for one to even think about the possibility if its existence. Or in other words: For an agnostic the question cannot be answered. For an atheist the question does not even exist. Nevertheless, for an atheist it is not important that there is not a god. Therefore there is no incentive to fake one away. And those with a flourishing business publishing books, if they really find irrefutable evidence that against all probability god exists, I don't know how many of them would dare to go on denying him. ;-D

There are concrete examples how religious people faked 'evidence' to support their religious world view.
A nice example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beringer%27s_Lying_Stones

Except that was a hoax intended to discredit someone, not to prove someone's beliefs. The hoax only just happened to have some religious connotations.

Since there isn't anything to 're-hide' for atheists

That's complete nonsense. There are a huge number of religious artifacts out there. Nothing that proves the existence of an all-powerful being, of course, but lots and lots of artifacts none-the-less.

Perhaps you could ask Richard Dawkins what he would do?

Perhaps you could ask any Christian, Muslim, or Buddhist scientists what they'd do?

For atheists it is not important whether a god exists or not. They just don't see any evidence for its existence so they don't care. Give only one irrefutable proof and most of them would immediately accept its existence.

Also complete nonsense. Like any other religious group, atheists are all across the spectrum.

I would.

Your particular position on the spectrum is not the textbook definition of the term, nor typical of all adherents. In fact what you've described is closer to agnostic than atheist.

Even if you dismiss the dogma involved, any one of them who has a flourishing business publishing books or whatnot, would be hesitant to undermine their life's work and risk their highly lucrative business.

There are concrete examples how religious people faked 'evidence' to support their religious world view.
A nice example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beringer%27s_Lying_Stones

Since there isn't anything to 're-hide' for atheists, your statement is unprovable and therefore empty. Perhaps you could ask Richard Dawkins what he would do? For atheists it is not important whether a god exists or not. They just don't see any evidence for its existence so they don't care. Give only one irrefutable proof and most of them would immediately accept its existence. I would. Tough in that case I'd immediately try to enlist with Satan.

However, unlike Atheists and perhaps Agnostics, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists can have an extra incentive to fake results.

If you mean to say that Christians, Muslims & Buddhists have incentive to fake results to suit/support their religious beliefs, then atheists have the same problem. Their "extra incentive" would be to fake results to undercut evidence that might lend supports to any of those same beliefs, at every opportunity.

Swap Indian Jones with Richard Dawkins, and tell me that, upon discovering the ark or the grail, he wouldn't have just re-hidden the artifact, and never said a word about it to anyone...

choices such as "Fox News" and "The Onion"

those are sister sites, right?

I had twice as many options, including choices such as "Fox News" and "The Onion," but I figured there where already too many. So I removed the non-religion choices for this poll.

I chose atheist scientists, who use Pipedot. :-D

-Scientists
-Politicians
-News Media
-Celebrities
-Pipedot Users

I think we are talking a bit at cross-purposes. What you say is 100% true. If I have a goal I'd try everything to convince as many people as possible. To do that I would use whatever promises me the most success. However, on the receiving end of such a manipulation attempt I don't care what makes sense for most people. I want to know what the goal is. And the goal is not internet surveillance. This is only a means to an end. So, what is the goal?

Hmm... your point of view is valid. But there are others. For instance you wrote:

Or if they are funded by a large oil company and do climate research...

Yes, people have reasons to fake research results. They may be paid to do so. They may do it to get funding and/or fame. Those reasons are equally valid for religious and not religious people. However, unlike Atheists and perhaps Agnostics, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists can have an extra incentive to fake results. One more kind of temptation. So statistically one should be more careful about what religious people say.

Of course, this is only statistics, there should not be an automatism to dismiss their research. There is no Christian, Muslim, or Buddhist hive mind. Cheating is always done by an individual.