Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:News at 11 (Score 1, Troll) 298

Just one problem. "We don't know why this apparent contradiction exists, but we're researching it" is pretty much the exact opposite of "ignoring facts".

Which is fine, as long as this apparent open-minded and scientific approach is not regularly coupled with "The science is settled".

Researching methods to explain away the data that contradicts your forgone conclusion is not good science. Vilifying the science community that continues to probe the validity of that conclusion is even less so.

Comment Re:News at 11 (Score 0) 298

In other words, measurements from cities should show a marked and wholly false warming trend over the last decade or so. So we should be using the temperature measurements from only remote stations from the last 100 years to prove warming. How many remote temperature stations existed even 20 or 30 years ago?

Comment Re:value scales with screen size (Score 1) 347

I agree. And the fact that they continue to make a profit speaks more to the fact that the consumers are idiots than anything. But imagine a core group of political bureaucrats deciding how much of your tax dollars would be allocated to movies or television, and what kinds of things the government thinks you really need to be viewing. What message do you need to recieve?

And yes, I'm well aware that in many cases Washington is able to utilize Hollywood as a platform for their message. But at least there's a pretense that Hollywood isnt directly associated with this administration.

Comment Re:value scales with screen size (Score 1) 347

The tequilla example is only if the seller provides all the mixers as part of the $50 purchase. Disney sure as fuck isnt going to give you an LCD if you pay $10 per movie as opposed to $5.

Your "temporal" argument is invalid. Watching the move NOW (once) for $15 includes the services of the theater. Paying $10 in 3 months is the value of the movie at that point in time. $5 is the value of the product in a year. Just like when a 2014 truck is valued today at $50k as opposed to a 2005 truck valued at $25K, goods depreciate in value even if they are unused. The consumer public generally wants what's hot today, and they pay a premium for it. Paying less a year from now is not just aniticipated, it's expected because that product doesnt have the same market value it once had.

Purchasing an aged product, and the value curve associated with that doesnt address this new billing proposal at all.

The challenge of the contect industry is to produce a good that has value, and selling it for what the public is willing to pay. That product is worth X. Not X +/- my personal environmental variables. I dont pay more or less for my print edition of The Lord of the Rings depending on whether I read it in a beautiful quiet park in mid-may under a shadey tree, or while riding a greyhound bus cross-country sitting next to a vomit-stained anarchist named Bulldog who has a bowel disorder.

Slashdot Top Deals

Happiness is twin floppies.

Working...