Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:okay... (Score 1) 288

As well with almost all movies being reboots or remakes, and predictable, and Hey! another Marvel Comics superhero flick! How original!

Or worse yet, when you run out of ideas for new Marvel Comics superhero flicks, you make yet another reboot of a Marvel Comics superhero flick that's already been rebooted before...

Mister Nolan and Ms Coppolla - how much are you going to pay me to go to a theater?

Has Sophia Coppolla actually made any good movies? The only movie of hers I've seen was "The Virgin Suicides", years ago. It sucked. And so did her acting in Godfather III.

Comment Re:I'll decide for myself thanks (Score 1) 288

If I can replicate the experience to a good approximation in my house why would I bother going to a theater and paying a lot of money? Big screen? Got it. Popcorn? Check. Dark room? No problem. Good sound? Probably better than most theaters. What is he really offering me that I don't already have? Give me something more if you want me to make the extra effort to go to a theater.

Oh please, you're ridiculous. Theaters offer many valuable features you simply cannot easily get at home. Here's a few:

* teenagers using cellphones
* screaming kids (esp. in R-rated movies)
* people talking about the movie
* people talking *to* the movie
* arguments between patrons
* patrons shooting each other

Going to a movie at a theater isn't about technical specs, it's about the people there, who you get to have a shared viewing experience with. That's what's so special about going to a theater, and why you can't replicate it at home. At home, it's just a dry, inhuman experience with only you there alone, or maybe 1 or 2 other people. At a theater, you have a whole room full of wonderful people to share that experience with, along with all the other great things that come with being around other humans, including the talking, screaming kids, use of cellphones with bright screens, and shootings.

Comment Re: Send me money then (Score 1) 288

In my own home, I can also watch TV in bed with my arm around my girlfriend. Theater seats have immovable armrests which prevent getting close to your companion.

And yeah, it's nice being able to make any food or drink I want, instead of being limited to whatever overpriced shit they sell at the concessions stand. Not to mention being able to pause and rewind.

Comment Re:okay... (Score 3, Insightful) 288

It sounds like a good idea to me, seriously. The problem is that if I do that, I'll surely go to jail for assault.

So I have a solution which will keep me from both getting angry and going to jail: I just won't go to the theater. As a bonus, I'll save a bunch of money, which I can use instead for going out to eat at a nice, quiet upscale restaurant with my girlfriend. If the theaters go out of business, then so be it. The nice restaurants don't seem to have a problem keeping customers in line and tossing out rowdy people.

Comment Re:Another Bullshit Study From the Music Industry (Score 1) 130

I'd re-title the article, "Changes to government-granted monopoly rules could earn music industry $16.5 billion instead of a mere $15.5 billion."

For a bunch of people who 100% depend on the government to supply them with a living they sure do get uppity.

Comment Re:It's not just low skilled labor (Score 1) 380

Common sense dictates that throwing 26 million Americans off of health insurance is bad idea. Hence, the bill died without a vote in Congress.

Huh? That's not the way the media is spinning it. According to them, and to Trump and Ryan, the bill died because the "House Freedom Caucus" (a bunch of hard-line conservatives) said they'd refuse to vote for it, mainly because it wasn't conservative enough for them, not because they gave a shit about 26 million poorer Americans losing health insurance. (Ironically, many of these caucus members were elected by poorer, working-class Americans who stood to lose their health insurance as a result of their voting for ultra-conservatives, but hey, that's OK if they die from preventable health problems as long as we can ban abortion again, right?)

Comment Re:Robots will continue to win: What do we do (Score 1) 380

Extra income for other jobs too, that require actual intelligence and decisions. Also for services.

For instance, if I have the choice of going to two coffee shops, one staffed entirely by robots, and the other having a robot making food/drinks, but some cute girls delivering them to my table, I'm going to choose the latter if the price isn't that much more.

Society's in big, big trouble when femme-bots are invented though....

Comment Re:Robots will continue to win: What do we do (Score 1) 380

Live concerts are not free to produce. You have to pay for the power (and that's a lot, for all the lights and amplifiers), the equipment, and you have to rent the stage/venue. You also have to publicize it somehow or no one's going to come. They don't have to be as expensive as many are now, but someone owns that venue (and has to maintain it), and you have to pay for that if you're going to perform there. Otherwise, they'll rent it to someone else who will.

Comment Re:Robots will continue to win: What do we do (Score 1) 380

No. I'm all for a UBI, but this is too much. If you give people stuff for free, they're going to hoard and take advantage. Resources and energy are not infinite or free.

Self-driving cars are a luxury. They absolutely should not be free. Eventually they should be mandatory for road-going vehicles because of safety, but they should never be free. They consume massive amounts of energy. If people want cheap transport, it has to be done by train or ship. Even that cannot be free.

This is why the UBI makes sense: it allots a certain amount of resources (represented by money) to everyone as a baseline, in return for them being part of society (and also not acting against society, i.e. not being a criminal). This affords them a certain amount of freebies: namely a place to live and food (and also healthcare for necessities, that really should be free and separate from the UBI) and maybe a few nice things, but limited to a certain monthly "allowance". So they'll be able to afford maybe one concert a month (on the lawn or maybe back rows), or they can spend it on a few smoothies, or save it up for a year and get front-row tickets or a trip somewhere, etc. And if this paltry but functional standard of living isn't enough for them, they can go find a job, or try making crafts and selling them, etc., and make more money, or maybe try writing a book and then becoming a millionaire like JK Rowling (who used to be on welfare).

No, air travel is not a basic necessity, nor will it ever be. Air travel is highly energy-intensive. If it were free, the demand would skyrocket and we'd have far more jet fuel being burned than today, with terrible consequences.

The only thing that should be an actual freebie is healthcare. Healthy people don't need it much anyway (just a check-up), and healthier people are more productive anyway (so more likely to go get a job, or do something productive that results in more economic activity, which in turns pays for the UBI and free-healthcare system for everyone through taxes). Everything else needs to be rationed for the the freeloaders; we can afford to let them have a small amount (which they choose by how they spend their UBI check), but that's it. If they want more, they have to contribute more to the economy and earn more money.

Comment Re: Islam beats christianity. (Score 1) 426

How about all the millions in Africa that the Christian missionaries "help" by spreading Christianity and teaching them to hate gay people, so that they pass laws legalizing murder of homosexuals?

No one is helped by Christianity, it's a religion that only spreads hate and demands money from its followers.

Comment Re:Good (Score 1) 181

How are you disgusted by what you read on FB?

I have a FB account too. I rarely use it. My main reason for having it before was for services which used it as an authentication mechanism, namely Tinder. I have a gf now (no thanks to Tinder, but rather OKC), so I don't even need it for that now, but I'll keep it around just in case this one fails. Anyway, I also have a small handful of "friends" on FB, mostly family members, and some other friends of friends who got in there. I only do this really to seem "normal" and have a way of contacting these people just in case. Most of them just post stupid but harmless crap: family photos, "look at us on vacation!", "Junior at his baseball game!" type BS, and "liked" junk such as some cooking recipe or whatever. There have been some that started spewing a bunch of political crap (always right-wing like you mention), so I de-friended them. In short, I don't keep any "friends" there that spread that crap, and don't have very many friends, so I don't have to be disgusted. I'm disgusted enough with all the right-wing, nationalistic, xenophobic conspiracy-theory garbage right here on Slashdot and various other sites, but at least on FB I can filter it by defriending those people. Of course, that doesn't leave much of a reason to bother using the site, but that's OK. It's there in case I need it for something (sometimes someone will send me a link on there), and to make sure someone doesn't create a fake account in my name.

Slashdot Top Deals

You can write a small letter to Grandma in the filename. -- Forbes Burkowski, CS, University of Washington

Working...