Can you explain why you feel a video store should be entitled to lifelong market share?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Printable View
Can you explain why you feel a video store should be entitled to lifelong market share?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
lol video store
Can I hire a VHS of the latest blockbuster please?
I actually read that there is a BlockBuster Video store still doing great business in 2017.
Apparently internet is so expensive in Alaska that people still rent videos.
I wonder what's stopped redbox from ruining their fun?
On a related note, I was thinking recently about the word 'rewind' and how we still use it despite its relevant technology having gone obsolete.
:)Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Can you explain how you did arrive at that conclusion?
Relevant passages were quoted for reference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
You don't seem to understand the "relevant passages" you quoted for reference. Where did I say what you are claiming?
Dude, it's pretty clear that the headline to this entire narrative is "Evil faceless corporations decimate small businesses"
I certainly got the same impression when I read your post. I'm never quite sure what point it is you're trying to make though bar business is evil.
This seems ludicrous to me. Most of the money is going on McGregor???? Really??? I'm not even a casual fan of either sport and I can tell you definitively that Mcgregor has no chance. Literally none.
He might have a chance if they force Floyd to fight while tied to a chair.
40 bets and a small amount of money which means someone putting a big bet on sways the result very easily.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
My point was more hyperbolic. Regardless of how many bets, or how large, you would think that all the money would be on one side when the outcome is so obviously pre-determined.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
McGregor may be younger, or hit harder, or whatever. He has to actually hit Mayweather for any of that to matter. This fight is gonna be like watching McGregor try to punch a bolt of lightning.
Today I:
- installed central vac
- hung a large mirror ($25 CAD baby!)
- got drunk
- obv
- went to ftr
Yo fuck trump. I probably could have changed my avatar months ago but I don't post here often enough to make it worh my while.
I wish I did though, because it would mean werewolf is running alive and well.
Also, I would love to get back into hh strat. Every now and then I post but I can't find the responses (been too long since I posted).
Advice? Which threads are best at FTR for hh analysis?
A good day.Quote:
Originally Posted by BankItDrew
ay fam flop turn river was lit
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
Ong nailed it
Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Let me try to ELY5
You have big business, you have small business. By their very nature, it’s easier to set up a small business rather than bigger businesses. Capital (both minds and money) needed, manpower, HR, etc. Which is why you should have more small businesses (mom n pop shops) than big businesses (the actual companies verizon, walmart, not referring to A walmart outlet store nor A verizon storefront. Hopefully you’ll see why)
Big business will inevitably render small business obsolete. Because it can offer more stuff, probably cheaper because of mass production, etc, to compete. Yet it is also in a particular position to make the barrier of entry, as in how to get in the market, higher (more difficult) for up and comers. Through legislation and other forms of law-making, bribes, strong-arming/bullying, etc.
Now going into details by providing an example:
A mom n pop video store would never have been able to compete with a Netflix/Amazon-esque competitor. It was doomed to fail from the start. It sounds cliché but it is: technology fucked them out of existence. Once the Pandora’s Box containing digital video (xvid/mkv/mp4 etc) was opened, it killed off DVD. Then came the next format wars between HD DVD and Bluray, of which bluray emerged victorious; you can still rent blu rays though. But who will rent your bluray when they can get that same movie as a rental from Amazon/Netflix/Apple etc at competitive prices without ever leaving their homes?
Now, can a mom n pop video shop offer digital downloads? It would be cost prohibitive to do so. Not because of technology per sé; it is technically possible to set up servers for cheap, but you would probably have to rely on bittorent protocols to serve up content in cost effective manners. But the studios, who own the IP, would never ever ever consent to you giving up their content in this way. It is not de facto secure, etc. And they would need more money in royalties etc.
You used to be able to just buy the disc, and then rent it out to your customers. But now, it’s not as easy anymore. You need servers set up to serve the content, license checks, hard disk space, data corruption safeguards, a ton of expensive IT motherfuckers on payroll, make an app for various platforms for your customers, caring for UI, etc. The barrier of entry (see above) into that particular market has risen dramatically. So it’s not easy to replicate, to come up with, a competitor to Amazon, Netflix, etc. You need a lot of resources to get started. Literally, competitors in this particular field can be counted using the fingers on your hands, when before there were a fuckton. Since when was having defacto oligopolies popping up everywhere a good thing?
This explains why mom n pop video shops have gone the way of the plesiosaur; still a possible sighting along the Loch Ness river every few decades, but other than that, pretty much gone. Except, it's not for the reasons that you believe.
This is also why you should be particularly worried that some of these competitors are now so big that they literally own the “roads” connecting to other competitors services, aka net neutrality and scheming to fuck it up by placing unelected corporate shills in the right places, and then somehow brazenly claiming it’s actually good for you
NET NEUTRALITY people, brush up on this as it's very important right now
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92vuuZt7wak
www.gofccyourself.com
And the FCC actually fucking nerfed the page, so that you cannot leave a comment on the bill at all. This is war ladies and gentlemen, and the FCC plays dirty AF. Hopefully more people will realize that their interests are simply not catered for by their elected officials, to the tune that the FCC is willing to nerf the site completely, making it incredibly more difficult to leave a comment and then taking down the search entirely.
Democracy? The population's interests? Hahahaha
Remember this next time you are voting
Like I'm 5, or like YOU'RE 5. Based on your explanation, I think your understanding of business is on a kindergarten level.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Ok. You just said that. I agree. However, everything you say after this, seems to ignore this fact. It's easier to set up small businesses. Keep this in mind as we move on.Quote:
You have big business, you have small business. By their very nature, it’s easier to set up a small business rather than bigger businesses.
False. This presumes that ONLY a large business built on efficiency, variety, and low costs can satisfy the needs of consumers. What about quality, relationships, personal service? Do people care about those things? If so, then the small business will never be obsolete. If not, then why are small businesses worth protecting?Quote:
Big business will inevitably render small business obsolete.
False, we just got through agreeing that small business are easier to set up than big ones.Quote:
Because it can offer more stuff, probably cheaper because of mass production, etc, to compete. Yet it is also in a particular position to make the barrier of entry, as in how to get in the market, higher (more difficult) for up and comers.
You make it sound like the big corporations can just buy the government. I realize sometimes it seems that way, and I'm sure if you tried you could find me lots of anecdotal evidence. But it's nowhere near the extremes you seem to believe it is. Small businesses are not alone in the fight. They can participate in, and share the resources of, all sorts of larger entities that can help them level the playing field. Bank of America isn't the only bank in the world you know. There are thousands of small, local banks in communities nationwide. Are they loaning money to Amazon, wal-mart, or verizon? Probably not. They're probably supporting local businesses.Quote:
Through legislation and other forms of law-making, bribes, strong-arming/bullying, etc.
Are there such a thing as trade organizations? Is it impossible for a small business to work with a lobbying group? Does virtually every town have a local chamber of commerce? Better Business Bureau? What about the Small Business Administration and it's offices in all 50 states?
Dude you make it sound like small businesses are hung out to dry. They aren't. I think you need to open your mind to the possibility that alot of small businesses fail simply because alot of them are started. Additionally, alot of them are started by idiots. Don't go blaming wal-mart for every boarded up storefront you see.
Thank you for helping me to illustrate your ignorance.Quote:
Now going into details by providing an example:
So?Quote:
A mom n pop video store would never have been able to compete with a Netflix/Amazon-esque competitor
Then why should we sympathize with someone who set out on a doomed quest in the first place?Quote:
It was doomed to fail from the start.
Technology changed the business landscape. "Fucked them out of existence" is a real stretch.Quote:
It sounds cliché but it is: technology fucked them out of existence.
I'll repeat my original question. Why do you think the video store owner is entitled to life-long market-share?Quote:
Once the Pandora’s Box containing digital video (xvid/mkv/mp4 etc) was opened, it killed off DVD.......You used to be able to just buy the disc, and then rent it out to your customers. But now, it’s not as easy anymore.
Why are you asserting that any business or industry should be easy to replicate?Quote:
So it’s not easy to replicate, to come up with, a competitor to Amazon, Netflix, etc. You need a lot of resources to get started.
I just want to recap here and make sure that I understand your point.... It is your assertion that mom and pop video stores are becoming extinct because large corporations have muscled in on their market with services that mom and pop can't replicate.Quote:
This explains why mom n pop video shops have gone the way of the plesiosaur;
How are you totally ignoring the changing needs of consumers in your analysis? Why are mom and pop entitled to continue to offer inferior services without the threat of outside competition?
You know what I see a lot of now...cupcake shops. I see small boutique bakeries offering a variety of flavored and decorated personal sized pastries at head-scratching prices. However, long before there was a cupcake shop on every corner, there were grocery chains and super stores like wal-mart with very large bakery departments. They have sheet cakes, enough to feed 30 people, ready to go. They have high efficiency baking equipment that allows them to make huge volumes of cake at incredibly low prices. They can sell 4 packs of cupcakes for the same price as one cake at a boutique. They'll even decorate it how you want.
And despite those conditions, the mom and pop cupcake store emerged, and is thriving. I think its because people are becoming a little more health and fitness conscious, and exercising a little more control. In other words, people don't want a 24 pack of brownies for 2.99. They'd rather pay 5.99 for a single pastry. Why? Portion control? It's more of a "treat"? Personal connection to the proprietor? Quality of ingredients? Flavor? It's probably all of those things. Those are all things that can't be replicated by you're typical monolithic corporate baking interest.
Let me ask you this.....exactly which evil, faceless, corporate machine squashed the ash-tray industry? 50 years ago there were a lot of manufacturing companies, retail outlets, and skilled craftsmen making a living selling decorative and functional cigarette ash receptacles. Now, they're incredibly less common. So, how exactly did they get "fucked out of existence"?
What you're missing here, is that mom and pop's skill set doesn't necessarily have to do with video rentals. Their skill set is retail. If they are in a convenient location with lots of traffic, if they have strong relationships with the community, if they offer products that people want to buy at prices they are willing to pay, then they are fine. If technology changes such that people don't want video rentals anymore, that doesn't stop mom and pop from using their retail expertise and networks in the community to simply switch to cupcakes, or washing machines, or custom engraved toothbrushes.
The idea that mom and pop business owners should not have to embrace changing economic conditions and react to changes in consumers needs is CRAZY. If they are unable to do those things, then they really don't deserve to be in business in the first place. And I'm not sorry that Netflix "fucked them out of existence".
My company got hit by that same ransomeware virus that smashed the NHS.
Did you pay up?
Our french arm got hit first, so I assume they paid up immediately.
Early in the day, a lot of networked functionality was taken offline including email, printers, and phones. Then one guy in the office got hit with the red screen asking for 300 bucks, and they just told everyone to shut it down and leave.
The problem being that I have two laptops that share the same "harddrive" through the network because we have an amazing backup system. If the virus hits one "harddrive", once it syncs up, it could hit them all.
I approve of this comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by rilla
Is this becoming a majority opinion?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOCoqoUdssM
More upvotes than downvotes on a clearly mentally ill man screaming gibberish. I know people are stupid, but flat-earth stupid?
Flat earthers aren't necessarily stupid. We have basically three types of people producing material on this subject...
1) religious nutjobs who reject science
2) ultra-conspiracy theorists
3) trolls
What surprises me is that noone has actually been able to put this to bed yet. It should be easy. Just find three mountains that are all in view but far from each other. Take photos at different distances, or perhaps film as you approach by air. Apply mathematics.
This isn't 9/11 territory. It can be debunked with pure mathematics.
Well there's your problem! You're thinking rationally, Marty!
If you applied rational thought and scientific method you could determine that the earth is a globe in many different ways... or show that it can't be flat. The problem is that flat earth supporters don't brain so good. If you watch just a couple of seconds of that video you can clearly see that this guy is hysterical. There is nothing you could possibly tell him that he won't shut down by shouting nonsense. You would first have to lay the groundwork of what the scientific method is and why it works, and only then can you start to have an argument. You essentially have to make them catch up to at least the 17th century before you can even attempt to tackle the subject of the shape of the earth.
Did Ong really just imply that logic and proof are actual persuasive tools? lol
Well he's either stupid, crazy, or a troll.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Most of what I've read from flat earthers (which is laregly limited to idiots on youtube) is either religious bullshit or people arguing that it hasn't been proven to be spherical. I really hate to admit it when it comes to this matter because of how fucking obvious it is that the earth is spherical, but based on most of what we can find out by simple googling, it isn't proven.
How can you prove to yourself that it's spherical? I'm not talking about reading Wikipedia articles about Greeks studying shadows, you're taking someone else's word for it. Repeat that experiment yourself, and observe it. The awkward truth is that it's not easy to demonstrate to yourself beyond any doubt that the world is spherical. At some point, you're assuming something you learned is true. So it's not just stupid people that can buy into this, it's also paranoid people who can't figure out a way to prove it to themself without relying on third party information.
I'm pretty sure I've stated my absolute faith in mathematics before.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
I'm not sure how this is relevant to what I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The problem is how all this stuff comes around. So science advances and stuff we learn builds upon itself. The internet is still a fairly new thing, let's say it's been in real mainstream use ~15 years, and there are lots of cool science bits all over the place. Lots of the educational stuff people learn is covered in absolutely fantastic ways, lots of the cool stuff is covered in absolutely fantastic ways and if you look hard enough the rest of it tends to be covered pretty well.
The issue is that if you create an issue like flat-earth in the past couple of years then it's really easy to set up lots neat, pretty well made sites that can ask a lot of questions that can confuse people, make them think they don't understand and ultimately doubt everything. I've got an ok grounding in physics & maths, fairly well educated,, fairly intelligent and I imagine if I searched for this type of stuff I'd get confused not be able to say why it's wrong etc.
This leads to the spread of these ideas, the answers to the questions aren't easily accessible, take time effort etc to learn. When people ask questions like this they tend to get lots of people who also don't really understand it but take science as gospel shouting at them calling them stupid making them not want to get involved and find out why it's wrong. When they do get answers they tend not to be the nicely presented, best explanations like lots of other topics they may look up because it hasn't had that time to get the nicest answer.
If you wanted to learn basic calculus on the internet there are loads of great resources that have built up over time but at the same time I can link you lots of stuff that is right but at the same time really hard to read, poorly presented, obtuse, hard language. Iterations of people making better and better stuff solves that.
As conspiracy theories flesh out and exist longer we tend to find that they get better and better information to dispute them. If you look at something like moon landings being fake, lots of quite good science that's easy to take in to debunk most (all) of this stuff. 10 years ago, not the case.
/really long boring post, repeating points, going off topic, etc..
I've been thinking about this a bit more.
There has to be an element of stupid in flattards. It's not that questioning what we're told is stupid... it's the blind refusal to accept fairly intuitive evidence.
I have a pretty solid grasp of geometry and phsyics, for someone uneducated at least. Certainly I'd say I'm above average on these subjects. Most people haven't got a clue how gravity works, neither can they immediately understand the problems of flat maps of the earth. If I were average on these matters, I think I could have entertained the concept of flat earth, at least for a short time. However, being somewhat intelligent, I would want to try to understand. I would realise it can be proven one way or the other.
A friend of mine recently asked on facebook if anyone could prove the earth is round. I tried throwing Coriolis at him, to which he replied "I don't understand the science of hurricanes", so I explained it to him as best I could. Granted, I can't articulate this science as well as academics, but if he really wanted to understand, he could google it and get a better explanation. Coriolis in hurricanes is actually quite easy to understand, once you accept the earth is a rotating sphere.
But he didn't dig further. There's a reluctance to because a) it proves him wrong, and b) it requires a degree of intelligence.
Now this friend doesn't come across as stupid, he's more than capable of socialising and engaging in interesting conversation without sounding like a fool. However, he does demonstrate an intellectual limit by being reluctant to research counter evidence to his beliefs.
All it takes is a basic grasp of geometry. Armed with this knowledge, proving the earth is not flat is very easy.
I don't think it has much to do with intelligence, tho being really dumb certainly helps. I mean... the sun sets. Doesn't take a genius to unravel this conundrum.
But yet the sun setting is less convincing than a guy showing composite image of the earth saying that this is irrefutable evidence that the earth is flat... because it's obviously been faked to fool us and [...] just a giant fallacy sandwich that concludes that the world is definitely flat. That's the fun part about moon conspiracy theorists dissecting pictures as if proving that a picture is fake is proof of anything besides that picture being fake. You could ask any flat earth theorist what kind of test one could do to show that the earth is definitely not flat and if he can answer that question he's a troll because not understanding scientific method is a prerequisite for believing in nonsense of this magnitude.
... countered by blind repetition of untested claims and appeals to authority.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Trolls on one side saying flat - trolls on the other side saying round.
If you don't have personal observations which formulate an evidence-based assessment, then you're a troll to assert you "know" anything on the subject.
I do have personal observations. I have witnessed a total solar eclipse (predicted to the second), and numerous partial and lunar eclipses (also accurately predicted). I have observed the phases of the moon (once again, predicted), even witnessed how the tides are in synch with the moon's motion (predicted). I have been out to sea, where there is no land in any direction (I would've predicted this). I have flown, and witnessed the horizon extend (and this). I have skyped friends in New Zealand where their summer is our winter and their day is our night (also predicted). They have confirmed they can see the Southern Cross, but not the North Star (predicted).Quote:
If you don't have personal observations which formulate an evidence-based assessment, then you're a troll to assert you "know" anything on the subject.
Time and again, all of these observations will stand the test of prediction. These absolutely fuck the flat earth model, at least any theories I've seen.
For example, they say the moon is 3000 miles away. Well you're probably 3000 miles away from me. So next time we can both see the moon at the same time, we can compare our observations of its phase. Assuming the moon is 3000 miles away, then it (roughly) forms an equilateral triangle with our two points of observation. So you'll have a different angle of observation to me - around 60 degrees. Thus, we shall observe different phases. However, if the moon is 240,000 miles away, as proposed by the spherical earth model, then our observation angles differe by only a fraction of a degree, so we will observe (nearly) the same phase of the moon.
Trolls aren't people who think they know what they're talking about. Trolls are those who deliberately bait others into responding in a particular way, or someone who pretends to believe one thing when they believe another. Those who actually think the world is flat, they're not trolls; they're stupid, religious, or deeply paranoid.
I am a troll, but that's because I have pretended to believe the earth is flat to bait stupid people into arguing with me.
Don't worry lads I'm still alive and well.
I didn't think you were a young girl or homosexual.
@ong: you're a special case... in many ways... bro.
You have taken the time to understand that all of those predictions are indicative of a single phenomenon, or relation.
You have taken the time to explore the deeper connectivity of physical laws and understand both what they predict and how they are inter-connected.
I don't necessarily agree with your definition of troll. People pretending they believe something which they do not, or playing devil's advocate, is clearly trolling. People choosing to ignore what is effectively right in front of them because it feels cool to claim ignorance, like it's the world's or society's responsibility to teach them things, is equally trolly. When you hold a position that is undone with a single google search, and you persist that you're right because you refuse to do the google search, that's trolling, too.
***
It's kind of about belief, and oscar nailed it with "if they can answer the question, they're trolls."
If they don't believe the scientific method is a process that produces knowledge, that's fine. I do believe that, so here we are.
I have no idea how to change someone's mind on this. Present evidence? They don't believe that evidence-based conclusions lead to knowledge, so that's out.
What's left? IDK.
If they can present that any evidence will sway their view, then they have demonstrated they believe in evidence-based conclusions leading to knowledge, and are therefore ignoring the wealth of evidence demonstrating that the Earth is round, and are therefore trolls.
**
Except that, physically speaking, whether or not something is flat or round is a matter of perspective / reference frame and definitions.
So the whole argument exists only on the bottom of the pyramid of understanding the physical model. Then it goes away because the wealth of information suggesting the flat-Earth model makes poor predictions. Finally, it comes back, but as an idle musing - nothing to get heated and entrenched about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
This exchange makes no sense to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Is this a British thing?
You just described every religious believer in the world. And there are literally billions of them. Science hasn't definitively proven the origins of the universe, maybe they think you're the troll.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I'll tanslate so you can admire our gallows humour...Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
savy - holy shit terrorism, I didn't die
ong - why would you be at an Ariana Grande gig?
Nah it's just dumb, or stubborn. Trolls are those who deliberately deceive, usually for personal amusement. Let's not water down that term to mean an online adversary who we want to give a label to. Just call stupid people stupid.Quote:
People choosing to ignore what is effectively right in front of them because it feels cool to claim ignorance, like it's the world's or society's responsibility to teach them things, is equally trolly.
No, I didn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Science and religion don't even address the same categories of questions, so nothing I've said about someone's position on science is even related to what they believe about religion.
Science is only concerned with measurably predictable events. Religion is concerned with questions which do not have measurably predictable outcomes like, "What can we do to be 'good' people?"
You, however, just called them all ignorant.
I don't put forth that the scientific origin story (Big Bang theory) is a fact. If other people do, and they assert it's a scientific fact, then they are both A) a bit trolly at best, and B) totally confused about the goals of science. (Science doesn't produce, nor is it interested in "facts." Science is interested in what is consistent i.e. predictable. Religion and philosophy can dicker over what is a fact, but that is an unrelated conversation to science.)
Stupid people are stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Smart people who are behaving stupidly are not stupid, they're trolls.
What's an Ariana Gr....Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Nevermind. I'm realizing that I'm sorry I asked in the first place.
Carry on.
It took me ten minutes after news broke to realise it's a singer, not a venue.Quote:
What's an Ariana Gr....
Yeah ok. I would argue "deliberately" behaving stupidly. We're all allowed a stupid moment now and then.Quote:
Smart people who are behaving stupidly are not stupid, they're trolls.
Oh yes you didQuote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
^You realize that is really fucking trolly, right?Quote:
Science and religion don't even address the same categories of questions, so nothing I've said about someone's position on science is even related to what they believe about religion.
More trollage. C'mon man, BOTH institutions are pretty much obsessed with the origin of the universe.Quote:
Science is only concerned with measurably predictable events. Religion is concerned with questions which do not have measurably predictable outcomes like, "What can we do to be 'good' people?"
Yeah. Well, I wish I used stronger language then.Quote:
You, however, just called them all ignorant.
Hey Trolly McTrollerson, when I said 'you', it was meant to mean you scientists...collectively.Quote:
I don't put forth that the scientific origin story (Big Bang theory) is a fact.
You don't think you're being a hair splitting troll here? Science's efforts to understand the conditions that led to the big bang, is really just another way of saying "under what conditions can we predict a big bang"Quote:
Science doesn't produce, nor is it interested in "facts." Science is interested in what is consistent i.e. predictable.
terrorism at where I'm from was why it was funnyQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Having to explain why something is funny is usually a tell that it wasn't funny. Unless you're explaining it to mojo in which case it's ok.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
p.s. Religion tries to argue both Science and Philosophy. It will say the world is 5k years old (or w/e) as well as why it was created. What makes religion idiotic is that it provides 'facts' without evidence, and even in blatant contradiction to the evidence. If you want to argue imponderables like why the universe is here or w/e that's one thing. When you start spewing crap that isn't even remotely plausible like that the earth is 5k years old (or is flat, if you're a flattard), then ya, you're not just religious, you're an idiot.
Had no idea it was a singer either. Ariana Grande sounds like the name of a porn star with a big booty to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I was explaining it to MMM but at the same time that logic is bullshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
The goal of a joke is to be funny. If someone's response is 'haha' then you've succeeded. If they're response is 'why is that funny?' you haven't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
Ask 100 people if that's logical, and at least 99 will say 'yes' - unless two of them are you.
I thought that was a pretty good joke.
It's what stupid people say when they are too stupid to get the joke.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Also whilst this is a public forum thinking that jokes are made for the pleasure of everyone is also stupid.
It sounds to me like "big arena" in French, so I figured it was some pretentious venue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
:lol: Still nope.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Go ahead and quote it.
What's sad is that it's not. The boundaries of these fields strictly don't overlap.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
What's sad is that this idea that science and religion are at odds with each other is mostly non-existent outside of the USA.
So I do get that in my lovely country, this can be considered trolly... due to the common public understanding being demonstrably incorrect.
Yes. The Big Bang Theory was thought up by a Vatican Priest.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Damn that conflict between science and religion, though!
:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Umm... You mean this?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
That's not directed at me, personally?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Stand
I think you could have chosen your words better to avoid that confusion.
I'm neither hair splitting, nor trolling. I'm simply explaining the goals of science.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
What the path to those goals produces cannot be called "facts" in the sense that they are incontrovertibly true. The history of science is that of new information revealing that old "facts" were not true after all. This has happened to literally every "fact" science ever produced except for the current set of "facts." There is every precedence for these current "facts" being later shown to be not true.
Science doesn't produce facts, and is not concerned with Truth (with a capitol T).
It is not currently clear whether the conditions which led to the big bang could ever be observed. As such, it is not clearly a question to be pondered by either science or religion. It is still in the province of both until this becomes clear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I think you trolled yourself buddyQuote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Try again.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I said this question is not clearly inside or outside the boundaries of science, so they can both ponder it until that's figured out.
What about brilliant, layered comedy that you repeatedly discover after many exposures to said comedy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
What about the art of presenting a story such that some of the comedy is referencing a future scene which you haven't been exposed to, yet?
The 2nd and future readings/watchings reveal more and more of these little "inside jokes."
Mr. Show was excellent for this kind of humor.
When Savy makes it into one of those categories I will tip him my hat. First he needs to come up with a good one-liner.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2017/0...-solution.html
30K for coming up with the idea of putting a glove compartment on a plane???
At what point do engineers just say "we're done, we've already invented everything"
Sweet!Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I mean... I understand the words, but not why you put them in that order.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
... already invented everything?
No engineer has any idea what that could possibly mean.
If necessity is the mother of invention, then that means in order to invent something new, or improve upon an existing invention, there needs to be some kind of unaddressed need.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I would imagine that if you won an engineering contest, and were awarded huge sums of prize money for it, that your 'invention' would have addressed a significant need. In this case, that need is for more foot space on airplanes. That doesn't sound significant. It sounds frivolous and indulgent.
If that's considered to be prize-winning engineering these days, then maybe the game is over.
Once upon a time if you wanted to get from NY to Califronia, that trip would take 30 years. You'd walk, or ride a horse for days and days and days. Natives would shoot you with arrows and if you died, they'd just leave you there. They'd put a stick in the ground, put your hat on it, and keep walking.
That's a significant hardship that led to the invention of airplanes.
Now, our greatest hardship is "I wish I had more places to put my feet"
I'm not sure the Wright brothers would be proud.
lol at not thinking that more space on flights isn't a huge positive, easily worth millions to airlines.
LOL at you buddy. That's a gigantic myth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
Look at recent news for United, Delta, and Southwest. They're CUTTING services to compete with discount airlines. Airlines are starting to realize that they really have the public by the balls.
Passenger - "I need to get from London to New York, and I need to get there TODAY"
Airline - "Sure sir, here's a seat, affordably priced on a direct, non-stop flight to your destination."
Passenger - "Great where should I put my suitcase"
Airline - "Oh I'll take it. And don't worry, it will be right here waiting for you when you land"
Passenger - "Oh that's great. I'm hungry though"
Airline - "No worries sir, refreshments are served on the plane"
Passenger - "Hey this is all great, but sometimes my carry on bag touches my feet"
Airline - "Well we would be happy to gate-check the bag for you, free of charge. the bag will be right outside the plane door when we land"
Passenger - "But what if I want something inside it during flight?"
Airline - "well we have spacious overhead compartments for your personal items"
Passenger - "but sometimes they're full"
Airline - "well there is space under the seat in front of you"
Passenger - "But that slightly limits the potential configurations in which I can rest my feet"
Airline - "Fuck off then. You can swim to New York you fucking baby"
The only way that innovation is worth anything to airlines, is if people actually do decide that air travel isn't' worth the hassle of compressed leg room, and instead choose to swim.
@Mr. Stand: The way you describe it, people shouldn't complain to use a stinking outhouse pit if they need to use a restroom while at a restaurant or other public place of commerce.
(Ignore public health issues with the stinking pit)
People 100 years ago may think this is normal and anyone who complains is being a baby. Nowadays, not so much.
***
I don't know how you can assert that anything about being an airline passenger is not dehumanizing.
Everything about the experience aside from the saved travel time is tedious at best and often borders on cruel.
Like: every passenger is guilty until proven innocent in an airport
Like: if you're tall, the small leg room isn't inconvenient, it's painful
***
The aerospace industry scrapes thin margins. The state of the industry is such that any innovation is huge. If you can find a way to manufacture an airplane engine with 1% more efficiency than the current best, you'll make millions in the first sales run.
If you can find a way to get 1% better lift/drag ratio out of an airfoil, the same.
I'm actually overstating things. If you can get 0.1% improvement on those things, you'll be set.
Also... $30k to an airline?
Chicken scratch.
It's worth it in ad costs simply because we are discussing it, now.
Yeah. If we're ignoring the public health issues, then people have no basis to complain, other than their own sense of entitlement. If you don't like our stinking pit, then go home and use your own toilet. Or go to a restaurant with a nicer bathroom if that's what you're after. We sell food here. Eat, pay, and get out.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
You're riding in a chair, in the sky!!!! That's not dehumanizing...that's deifying!!Quote:
I don't know how you can assert that anything about being an airline passenger is not dehumanizing.
Tedious?? NY to LA in 5 hours. If that's too tedious for you, try walking.Quote:
Everything about the experience aside from the saved travel time is tedious at best and often borders on cruel.
Puh-leeeze man. You hold your hands above your head, the spinny thing checks you for bombs, and then you go about your business.Quote:
Like: every passenger is guilty until proven innocent in an airport
Well, try driving from NY to LA. Tell me how your legs feel after that.Quote:
Like: if you're tall, the small leg room isn't inconvenient, it's painful
You're talking about reducing costs. Sure, that innovation would be helpful. This 'glove compartment' doesn't reduce costs. It increases passenger comfort, and just barely. If anything, it makes the plane more expensive.Quote:
The aerospace industry scrapes thin margins. The state of the industry is such that any innovation is huge. If you can find a way to manufacture an airplane engine with 1% more efficiency than the current best, you'll make millions in the first sales run.
More importantly, it doesn't serve a need. If you can improve a jet's gas mileage, then the airline makes more profits. Those profits can be reinvested into more planes, hence more flights, hence more travellers, hence more profits. That addresses NEEDS. There is a need to conserve fuel and reduce costs. There is a need to increase volume and profits.
You cant' tell me that there are people out there right now who want to go places, have the money and time to do so, but aren't going because they don't like keeping their feet still for two hours. And you can't tell me that once these people see the new glove compartment thingy, they'll start flying more, because it's more comfortable.
There is nothing an airline can offer you that is more important to you than speed and convenience. Comfort is only a priority if what you're offering is not competitive relative to other airlines.
They spent a lot more than that just putting together the contest and the event(s) associated with it. $30k is just the prize money. And even if it's 30 cents, it's getting absorbed into the price of your ticket. Next time you're shocked at the cost of air travel, remind yourself "oh, but that had to pay for that little glove compartment thingy that I never use"Quote:
Also... $30k to an airline?
and
"oh they have to pay an actual human being to walk up and down the isle and hand out 3 oz drinks to people"
and
"oh they have to pay an actual human being to walk through the plane again and collect all the trash because the drinks are 95% ice"
and
"someone has to stand at the front at the beginning of each flight and point to where the emergency exit is. Because that glowing red sign and conspicuous doorway on the side of the plane isn't obvious to some people"
and a hell of a lot more unnecessary shit that's driving up the cost of your flight.
Airlines would be a hell of a lot more profitable if Airlines would just admit "hey you can buy your own drinks inthe terminal before you board". And, "if there's an emergency in flight, we're all fucking dead, don't count on a stewardess to show you where the door is"
Haha. Your answer to everything is: "Other people don't make mistakes, you do."
Yeah.. the airlines are perfect, and if anyone doesn't think 100% everything about them is totally great, then they're not even allowed on board.
It's literally a "my way or the highway" attitude.
:lol:
So puerile.
Whose the 'you' in that sentence?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Where did I say that. I have plenty of complaints about how airlines are run.Quote:
Yeah.. the airlines are perfect, and if anyone doesn't think 100% everything about them is totally great, then they're not even allowed on board.
At least you can say you're a better comedian than Savy.Quote:
It's literally a "my way or the highway" attitude.
Are you kidding? Who was the one whining a few posts ago about how the air travel industry was "cruel"?Quote:
So puerile.
Whomever you're addressing.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Dude. You didn't say that, I did.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
You can't tell 'cause the quote you quoted had my name in bold, but you cropped that part off.
IDK if you've heard, but if you don't like the airlines, you aren't allowed to use them anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
To each their own, I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
With you? Almost certainly. Is anything you say legit?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
That's me, and I'd continue if I thought it was anything aside from wasted time.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Their business practices are the antithesis of what I consider respectful service.
I like the airlines. My problem is with every single one of their other customers.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I think you're well aware that I don't kid around when it comes to science and engineering.Quote:
With you? Almost certainly. Is anything you say legit?
That's part entitlement, part insecurity. Zero parts disrespect.Quote:
Their business practices are the antithesis of what I consider respectful service.
If you feel disrespected, it's by design. Complaining about it only validates the practice. As I stated, there is absolutely nothing that an airline could offer you that's more important to you than speed and convenience. Otherwise, you'd take a car, or a bus, or a limousine. All of those options offer greater comfort and less obstacles than air travel. Less security screening, more leg room, windows that open, and in all likelihood a much cheaper price.
But those methods are slow. So they lose, and they lose huge when compared to air travel despite the litany of superior features.
You need to get somewhere and you need to get there fast. Your decision to purchase an airline ticket will never be swayed by whether or not you have an extra storage compartment under your seat. You could be forced to hold your carry on in your lap for the duration of the flight and you would still buy a ticket.
The only incentive that the airline has to provide these luxuries is to differentiate themselves from other airlines. But once the practice is adopted industry wide, then it becomes a cost slashing game once again. This cycle repeats with new innovations, the benefits of which diminish each time the cycle is repeated. Eventually the impact of new ideas approaches zero. And we're pretty close to that point if we're giving out medals for "inventing" a shelf.
LOL hardcore trollingQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
The Fall are fucking brilliant. Mark E Smith looked like he'd been wheeled out of a care home for an hour to perform. He has a lump on the side of his head the size of a golf ball. Kinda half expected to get home and discover I watched his last gig.
Priorities...
Terror attack? Grab beer and run.
http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...3&d=1496569434
With the price of drinks in London I'd grab my beer too.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Is Theresa May mentally retarded or is there some kind of viable strategy here... obviously not to combat terrorism but to impose regulations on ISP's that could leverage power or turn a profit?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7771896.html
Both.Quote:
Is Theresa May mentally retarded or is there some kind of viable strategy here...
To those who think cricket is an insignificant sport...
Today, over 10% of the global population were either watching or listening to a Champions Trophy group game. It's not even the final, it's the group stage with qualification to the semi finals at stake.
Admittedly, the vast majority of them were in India, loads of them huddled round a single TV or radio. But between India, Pakistan, and those abroad who have an interest in this cricket game, it's over a billion.
For a game of fucking cricket.
The interesting thing about cricket is how insanely popular it is in England and yet nobody in the rest of the world even knows what the fuck is going on. At least with snooker and darts you get the idea. Cricket... anyone's guess. It's like watching an ant hill.
It's not really that popular here, compared to football. I mean sure we have millions playing it, but it's India and Pakistan that really love the sport.
For the most part, following cricket is easy, and people who say it's complex must be a little bit stupid tbh. You hit the ball, you run. You get a point. You miss the ball and the bails come off, you're out. You get caught, you're out. You have 11 guys, 2 batting at a given time. Get as many runs as you can before ten guys are out.
Sure, it does get a lot more technical than that, but the basic gist is simple.
It's not like watching an ant hill. If anything, it's like flicking ants coming out of an anthill, and getting six points for the ones that go far. Do it for five days, then when it starts raining, call it a draw and go inside for a cup of tea.
Another one from the "get on with it" archive...
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cp...6_capture2.png
Drinks are only expensive in London if you're not from London. If you're paid London wages, then drinks are cheap.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
This guy clearly isn't a Londoner.
So I'm having a conversation with my good friend M. and he casually mentions he has had trouble with his car. Something about the spark plug, he had to take it to the mechanic. M has been nothing but nice to me. He invites me to parties on his rooftop terrace where he gives me meat and beer, but when he tells me he's having another man look at his car because the spark plugs don't work right, I don't see my good friend M anymore. When you have another man look at your spark plugs, you should be asked to hand in your balls. They should take your jeans off you and put you in a little tutu and give you a shirt that sais SASSY so everyone knows what a helpless bitch you are. I'm not being hyperbolic. Fix your own damn shit. It's not hard.
With the internet showing you how to do literally everything this is fair.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Thank you!
:hmm:Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
How far reaching is this? Like, if I wear the tutu and shirt, I wont be expected to do auto maintenance, right? Anything else?
Like, can I get out of mowing the lawn? Re-wiring bad fixtures and switches? Taking out the trash?
Paying a mortgage?
...
This could be hugely +EV, despite the social stigma.
Well, what if this is his mechanic?Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
http://www.newsgra.ph/wp-content/upl...ne-leak-10.jpg
I don't even care that that's not where the spark plugs are.
The difference is that with women there's a mutual benefit. The man feels good about helping the woman and the woman feels good about making the man feel useful. In a man to man scenario there is no such dynamic except with the queers and then it's totally acceptable.
Oh and in reverse gender roles... I'm not sure what would happen but I imagine what happens to Scarlett Johannsen's victims in Under The Skin to be a fairly accurate depiction.
If you can live with the shame. The crippling shame. At least you won't be in the minority.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I'm a physicist, remember?
I'm already used to crippling shame in nearly all social settings.
This is at least half satire, but I feel like the implied crossover between Johnny Mnemonic and The Matrix makes it interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fq7oauciBdc
http://www.stepbystep.com/wp-content...lis-Recipe.jpg
Clearly these are brilliant, especially when drunk they are a lovely tasty snack and you're not going to want to eat loads of them. Question is what other things would you put them on? The juice is a lovely addition to a sandwich.
I assume you get them all over but for anyone who doesn't know they are just picked chillis, salty and vinegary (a word?) with a nice mild heat.
I'm ok with pickled chilis on pizza or in sandwiches, but I'm never super excited about them. I don't think I could physically get drunk enough to enjoy them on their own out of a styrofoam tray.
No thanks. I like my chillis unpickled.
The above picture is overkill, what you do when drunk and going to a chippy you get them to chuck 2-3 on whatever it is you're ordering.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Why did no one tell me that Norm Macdonald is great?
No one watching wrestling on here anymore? I know spoon used to. It's actually pretty great if you watch it on demand and just skip through all the shit bits.
When I was a kid and wrestling was popular I was never into that many of the female wrestlers. They were always a bit too fake*. Now most of them are hot as fuck and are actually doing impressive shit in the ring.
*There are exception, Keibler was an is arguably the hottest woman ever in WWE and people like Lita were hot and also way above their time but most of it was bullshit.
I made it to 2:24.
Share your times!
8:40