Indeed.

Though, the net good of having slightly less annoying movie outings will be vastly outweighed by the social net loss of furthering most people's belief that their own actions are not their own responsability. It will lead to scenarios where people say ridiculous things like, "This isn't a restricted zone, therefore I have a right to use my phone/device here and an obligation to excercise that right." Granted, most will say this with their actions rather than verbally- because they will at that point have no vocabulary other that text slang.

This world doesn't need any more removal of presonal responsability.

I think a new system should be implemented where everyone's phones are automatically registered as they enter the theatre (perhaps with a local zone using a similar device). Those whose phones remain silent throughout the film would receive an incentive and reward- perhaps some media clip or movie theme ringtown sent to them via text or an electronic coupon for their next visit- while those who use their phones are charged a reasonable yet unpleasant fee per device-activation offense. Repeat offenders could potentially receive pro-rated ticket prices, be banned completely, or have their individual device singled out and deactivated while on the premesis.

I think this is a masterful plan, and it took me all of 30 seconds to develop.

@Flashpoint:
I agree with craig#2.

You're seriously going to "meh" this proof of concept based on /something you saw on TV/ in the _'90s_? O_o

"Nintendo Wii won't be able to solve this and from the look of the picture: whatever they make is gonna be just as bad on the eyes as Virtual Boy."

Seriously? You expect them to write a full-blown hi-def video game when they're still working out the kinks of the control scheme? They're right on track for exactly what they're trying to do.

Buffoon, indeed.

To ensure the protection of a $1k+ purchase of /any/ kind, regardless of it's mac/win affiliation, I wouldn't hesitate at all to take the impact with my own body.

In fact, for myself and a number of friends from high school marching band, it's almost second nature to instantly brace for an imminent fall by drawing in valuables (be they plastic gadgets or brass instruments). Sure the gadget/horn won't bleed, but it won't heal itself, either.

Well played, indeed, Gaspode.

Though, while your opening remark makes it seem as though you are arguing against intelligent design (forgive me if I've taken your humor in a direction not intended), the whole of it seems to be denying the very existence of intelligence to begin with. It seems you're saying we're either not really intelligent and therefore cannot have been intelligently designed nor can we design lesser intelligence, or that we were 'created' by something/someone with equally predictable and mechanically produced 'intelligence.'

Interesting.

Maybe I'm too skeptic overall, but the idea of creating artificial intelligence has always struck me as, well, impossible. Sure, we can make elaborately coded intelligence-emulating software, and future generations will create even more elaborately coded and even more convincing intelligence-emulating software (and maybe the software will even learn to write /better/ software!), but it'll be nothing more than just that- a finite set of instructions constructed to mimic /behavior/ that lends itself to being /interpreted/ as having underlying intelligence. Until we develop something that doesn't run on 1's and 0's, the best artificial intelligence we come up with will be, at heart, just a very complicated (though still predictable) set of boolean algorithms.

That said, I'm still quite impressed with this feat (-or, will be once it runs later this year). While I don't think we're ever going to develop true intelligence in electronic form, the usefullness of having pseudo-AI electronics is undeniable. The ability for a program to interpret and identify the beliefs (and false beliefs- hit the read link) of others is impressive. Though, the fact that it has (and can form?) it's own beliefs does have impending doom undertones. Teaching a computer the concept of lieing will probably not go down in history as the wisest choice humans have made. ~_-

The next step for this kind of accomplishment is, of course, to teach Rascals to play WoW and FFXI instead of Second Life. Automated farming and power leveling FTW. Thanks RPI.

I can see this getting pretty humorous in its first few years of public use. I still have trouble telling if someone is having bluetooth conversation or just mumbling to themselves. Imagine the confusion when you initiate a conversation with someone only to have them tell you they're on the phone...despite their being completely silent. I guess it'll be that much easier to just ignore people by just ignoring them because you're "having silent a conversation" already. :]

That raises the question though, that if you're having a silent conversation on your cell, and then someone who doesn't know you're already having a conversation asks you something, what happens when you start to actually speak audibly to them? Seems like it'd be a good idea to have the device filter out actual audible speach in order to allow the option of "silently" (in regard to the person on the line) indicating to others physically present that you're busy.

Maybe a small LED "busy" light signal somewhere on the device would help smooth out the learning curve that the nuances of such a revolutionary device would bring into the culture.

Got my e-mail last night confirming that Office '07 will be arriving in "4-6 weeks."

I honestly don't think I ever filled out a survey at any point in the process though. I just installed the thing and forgot about it. I do recall a single e-mail confirming that I was sending data OK, but that was the last time I even thought about it 'til the e-mail last night.

If only I could get a free copy of photoshop as (legitimately) easy as this.

Man, I could really use a new keyboard :-D

@JD

Yeah, knowing the facts is a good thing. I remember in high school being told that the Chernobyl death count was in the thousands, and thus, nuclear power = ftl.

Interesting bit of information, though, considering that the real number was more around 56 (total number of deaths related to the incident as of 2004).

http://www.uic.com.au/nip22.htm

Attn: iPod/Zune Trolls
The mistake too many of you make is asserting that _all_ iPods (past, present,and future) are inherently superior to _all_ Zunes (past, present, and future), OR vice verca, based either on factors/features which may actually change with the next release/update of either product line or on the inherent good/evil qualities of their respective companies.

I own an iPod (G5), but have dabbled with Zunes owned by friends. I'm more fond of the chic style of the iPods in general, but I appreciate the better video capability and overal durability of the Zune. As products, they do exactly what they were inteded to do, and they apeal to those they were meant to entice.

Both companies are well aware of their target demographic, and consequently they lend themselves easily to critiques by those /not/ in that demographic. Microsoft offers many products, with customizations options, even on the fly. Apple prefers to sell an /image/ and not just a /product/. One consequence of selling an image is that people who don't like that image will be less impressed with the overall product.

It's not just supply and demand; it's supply and purchase. Many iPod freaks demand better specs from Zunes, but will never buy one. Similarly, Zune freaks make demands of the iPod, knowing they won't buy one even if their complaints were met.

Neither can be measured as "better" than the other, because they were intended to do different things to appeal to different people, in order to make money. The only real goal they have in common is to make money. If that were the standard by which we measure a product's success or value, these discussions would greatly different and it would, quite honestly, be perfectly clear which product is "better" of these two.