Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Let me get this right (Score 5, Insightful) 831

by ClintJCL (#48161687) Attached to: Bill Gates: Piketty's Attack on Income Inequality Is Right
Flat tax is bullshit because money's value to an individual is logrithmic, not linear.

Taking 50 percent from Bill Gates reduces his power almost by 0. Taking 50 percent from that single mother? Her kids are homeless. The same tax level is not simply the same for all people. Flat tax is an idea for the rich, by the rich, disguised as an idea for the people, by the people. Like *most* American politics.

Comment: Re:automation + liberal capitalism = disaster (Score 1) 405

Per capita is meaningless. If I create a country where I have a billion dollars, and live with 1,000 who actually owe me money, I can brag that everyone in my country is worth a million dollars. It would be misleading bullshit, like your summary.

Comment: Re:Should we jump to conclusions? (Score 2) 299

by ClintJCL (#48002263) Attached to: Forest Service Wants To Require Permits For Photography
The slope *is* slippery, and it's not a fallacy. 100% of government laws to prevent commercial photography get applied against non-commercial photography. 100%. Go read the PhotographyIsNotACrime blog. You can find story after story, month after month, year after year, of people being arrested for "not being allowed to film" in an area. The fact of the matter is, the enforcers never read the fine print in these laws, and 100% of the time, they apply to you and me. Calling this fallacious because of a logical fallacy in a list of logical fallacies is actually the logically fallacy here. It's a bit counter-intuitive, but if you stop to realize the government itself is illogical, then you realize: All slippery slope arguments pertaining to encroaching government are actually true. If not all, 99%.

Comment: Re:Same reason blu-ray didn't take off (Score 1) 204

by ClintJCL (#47847581) Attached to: Dell Demos 5K Display
" So either you don't actually watch porn, or you're full of shit."

I watch plenty of porn. The fact that your way of defending your position is declaring some sort of weird false dichotomy really indicates that you position can't stand on your own.

Seeing people for what they are. That's your argument. Your argument is that you want women to be blurry because you don't want to see their flaws. You want your reality censored. That is not the same as lower resolution being better. That *is* the same with my initial assessment that you are defective.

Maybe if you learn to appreciate women, you can learn to appreciate 1080p. What a sad fucking image of females and femininity you must have if you can't even look at them in lifelike quality. I'd suggest exploring your sexual spectrum more; maybe you don't actually like women, and that's why you don't like seeing them in detail. Or maybe you have some kind of prudish mental defect with sex. Catholic?

I love the "anyone who watches porn should be familiar". Fucking hilarious shit. I wonder how the porn industry bothered to cause blu-ray to win the blu-ray vs hd-dvd race, if anyone who watches it knows it looks worse? You'd think their blu-ray and hd sales would have plummeted to zero, since according to you, 100% of people who watch porn think like you.

Hilarious, man. And yes, it's exactly like the vinyl enthusiasts.

I guess you must really hate the movies, too, since movie theatre resolution is much closer to 1080p (by virtue of being "infinite" resolution analog prints) than 408p, dvd, or vhs quality. Lol.

Comment: Re:Same reason blu-ray didn't take off (Score 1) 204

by ClintJCL (#47846203) Attached to: Dell Demos 5K Display
also, 480p on a 52" 1080p is total fucking shit. If you want everything to be fuzzy, as if you have vision problems, it's great. I have 20/20 vision. Life never looks as shitty as 480p. DVD/480 on a big (>50") tv is basically the same density as VHS on a small ( Also, a 1080 web-dl looks noticeably better than a 1080 capture. I can tell in the first 2-3 seconds if it's been re-encoded (capture) or is straight-copy (web-dl).

Comment: Re:Same reason blu-ray didn't take off (Score 1) 204

by ClintJCL (#47846179) Attached to: Dell Demos 5K Display
I have no idea why you brought porn into this, as if I've never watched porn before (huh?), or as if this conversation was ever limited to porn.

As to me having never watched porn, does keeping your position on the subject actually require you to make up facts about others?

Stitching? Lacquers? No idea what you're talking about. Watched plenty of 1080p porn. Are you into plastic-surgery freaks or something? I actually now believe you to be making up facts about me *and* porn to try to legitimize your position.

But I understand. It's like arguing with a vinyl enthusiast -- They have a bunch of subjective, "religious", un-falsifiable claims to support their position, while people who support modern standards like FLAC or even CD have scientific, objective, falsifiable claims to support their position.

Comment: Re:Same reason blu-ray didn't take off (Score 1) 204

by ClintJCL (#47842005) Attached to: Dell Demos 5K Display
They are. If you actually want to, y'know, hear the sound reproduced faithfully - which is the whole point of listening to music - a cd will offer you better quality than all mp3 options and almost all streaming options.

It's strange that the majority of people who don't actually give a shit about fidelity get to determine the "winner", and not the ones who actually compare things. But hey, that's tyranny of the majority for ya.

Comment: Re:Same reason blu-ray didn't take off (Score 1) 204

by ClintJCL (#47841977) Attached to: Dell Demos 5K Display
I don't know if you live on another planet, or are another species, but I really can't comprehend how anybody could possibly say any of what you just said. I can only assume it's some form of nostalgic conditioning where you've decided something less accurate somehow looks better, or being shown something that's objectively better somehow offends what you're conditioned to see. I don't understand at all.

There is never any situation where a lower resolution looks better than a higher resolution, given all other variables being the same. It's just never, ever, ever, ever, ever the case. Ever. I don't know how you can say what you just said. It's about as odd as "I enjoy being burned by fires". I honestly think you must have poor vision, or extreme cognitive bias. You're "ruined" as someone who can objectively compare 2 things. You even imply that by saying your'e "unimpressed" when you actually see something better.

Would you make the argument that lower resolution cameras are better? Lower bitrate audio? That getting lasik will make life seem unimpressive? That vinyl is better than digital?

Never buy from a rich salesman. -- Goldenstern