I wonder... It doesn't make much sense to me to employ any kind of stereoscopic or similar display method on a device so small. Not only does the size of the screen mean any 3d effect achieved will be quite subdued, and I guess you'll end up calculating each frame twice (or three times for the triple-veil display?). Maybe the horizontal resolution for each angle is one third of the actual display resolution (don't know, don't care to look it up right now), but if so, that too seems like a picture quality compromise more than a plus. Now, head-tracking, on the other hand, would seem ideal for a small device. Since the screen is small, you wouldn't need to move your head much in relation to it to get a significantly different view. This would probably enable interesting gameplay mechanics as well beyond just a feeling of depth.
Wow, you USians really are getting reamed with cellular pricing. I pay 10 euro a month for unlimited 3g data transfers in my country. (Phone calls and SMS are separately priced, nominal bandwidth at this price is 384 Kbps). I can tether anything I like to the phone, my carrier doesn't ask.
Yes, because surely everyone involved in these incidents takes the time to fully and fairly evaluate all the sides to the story as well as what would constitute a measured response. I mean, that's how mobs work, right?
...not to mention when you happen to have a device that has a poorly designed USB port that will take a USB B connector the WRONG way without even resisting, resulting in some fried electronics...
Indeed there is. See your account settings, more specifically the exclusion settings under the indexes. Thanks, by the way, for reminding me to filter out kdawson's stuff - that bullshit posting about the MS involvement in the Seattle bridge affair was the last straw for me.
Excuse me? True democracy can be truly terrible for minorities. There's a reason constitutions put restrictions on the powers government can have, and it's not just because our governments are representational, not truly democratic. In any large society you're bound to have groups of people whose interests are directly opposed to each other. Without any restrictions on power, the many could do whatever they please with the few. If most people hate your guts and want to kill you, will you just "suck it up"?
I suspect it's more that revoking citizenship is not a simple matter, but if it turns out you lied on the application form, and were therefore granted citizenship on false grounds, it can be revoked much more easily.
And that's why I asked. I'm suspicious of ME2 precisely because the reviewers say the story is good, and they said the same thing about the first one. The question for me is: is it radically different from the first or not. I assume not.
When you say the story is good, do you mean it's "good" in the way ME1 was, or that it actually is good, and not just a mashup of the most worn space epic clichés combined with wooden characters and a ridiculous idiot for a main protagonist? I'm not just being facetious here - I like Dragon age, even the writing manages to be quite tolerable, but the original Mass Effect was one of the few games I genuinely regretted paying money for. So is this more of the same old or did they do it better?
I also don't understand why he thinks that artists 'need' record labels. What they 'need' is to grow organically to the point of extreme popularity and along the way you are the one deciding the terms of contracts and you are 'the boss' whose accountant and manager work for you and pay everyone up the chain.
There's an assumption implicit here that is all too common: That music needs to be a business, or even that record sales, radio play, the stuff record companies are seen to be good for, are a viable source of income for a large portion of musicians these days. Most of the bands and projects I listen to are far too obscure to make any significant cash on sales of recordings. They don't get any radio play worth mentioning. They know selling music is not, and never will be, something they can rely on as a significant source of income. Still, they continue to make great music, maybe making some cash off gigs, probably making most of their money from something quite separate from their band work.
So the people treating music as a business - feel free to do so, but if you fail to attain the level of profitability you deem necessary, I'm not inclined to jump through hoops to make the world more suitable for your needs. Anyone complaining that music is becoming too difficult to draw a profit from, and that artists will suffer from that is forgetting that the majority of artists already don't, and never will, make enough money to live off. The group of artists that sells enough records and gets enough radio play to get significant income from it is very small and I'm quite prepared to live without them.
C'mon. You have a device that takes digital photos, and a medium to save the data on. Then you have a system that lets you read said data and show it on a digital display. Maybe, as you noted, there's some software that triggers a user interface letting you immediately delete or keep a photo. Which part here is innovative enough to warrant patent protection? How much R&D does that really require? It's a combination of existing technologies, not much more. It's like putting shoe and sidewalk together and patenting walking in a city.
The headline plays with the common association between "evolution" and "improvement" in order to gather angry responses and its fair share of taunting.
No it doesn't. "To evolve" is a neutral term, quite apart from "better" and "worse". If people want to get riled up over that, it's their own damn fault.
No, it does, however, raise the possibility of holy tech support. Prayer circles praying for your tech problems to be solved, for a small fee, of course.
I have a terrible feeling that already exists somewhere.
Slashdot Mirror
Not true, I was able to view them just fine from Germany. Some videos didn't have the option to enable TEXTp though.
I wonder... It doesn't make much sense to me to employ any kind of stereoscopic or similar display method on a device so small. Not only does the size of the screen mean any 3d effect achieved will be quite subdued, and I guess you'll end up calculating each frame twice (or three times for the triple-veil display?). Maybe the horizontal resolution for each angle is one third of the actual display resolution (don't know, don't care to look it up right now), but if so, that too seems like a picture quality compromise more than a plus. Now, head-tracking, on the other hand, would seem ideal for a small device. Since the screen is small, you wouldn't need to move your head much in relation to it to get a significantly different view. This would probably enable interesting gameplay mechanics as well beyond just a feeling of depth.
Interesting that you choose to make the actions of deranged individuals a gender issue, yet imply you are for gender equality.
Sure, but that's not what was being discussed here.
Possible, but since the networks don't usually let you access any websites, I don't see how they'd get anyone to type their credit card numbers in.
Don't you know "e" is illegal in most countries?
It's the car analogy of car analogies.
So did you, sir.
Wow, you USians really are getting reamed with cellular pricing. I pay 10 euro a month for unlimited 3g data transfers in my country. (Phone calls and SMS are separately priced, nominal bandwidth at this price is 384 Kbps). I can tether anything I like to the phone, my carrier doesn't ask.
Yes, because surely everyone involved in these incidents takes the time to fully and fairly evaluate all the sides to the story as well as what would constitute a measured response. I mean, that's how mobs work, right?
...not to mention when you happen to have a device that has a poorly designed USB port that will take a USB B connector the WRONG way without even resisting, resulting in some fried electronics...
Indeed there is. See your account settings, more specifically the exclusion settings under the indexes. Thanks, by the way, for reminding me to filter out kdawson's stuff - that bullshit posting about the MS involvement in the Seattle bridge affair was the last straw for me.
Excuse me? True democracy can be truly terrible for minorities. There's a reason constitutions put restrictions on the powers government can have, and it's not just because our governments are representational, not truly democratic. In any large society you're bound to have groups of people whose interests are directly opposed to each other. Without any restrictions on power, the many could do whatever they please with the few. If most people hate your guts and want to kill you, will you just "suck it up"?
I suspect it's more that revoking citizenship is not a simple matter, but if it turns out you lied on the application form, and were therefore granted citizenship on false grounds, it can be revoked much more easily.
another old wrinkly dinosaur doesn't like change! Tangentially relevant sniping at 11 on FOX!.
There, fixed that for you.
There, fixed that for you.
It's competition bringing the prices ... up, apparently.
And that's why I asked. I'm suspicious of ME2 precisely because the reviewers say the story is good, and they said the same thing about the first one. The question for me is: is it radically different from the first or not. I assume not.
When you say the story is good, do you mean it's "good" in the way ME1 was, or that it actually is good, and not just a mashup of the most worn space epic clichés combined with wooden characters and a ridiculous idiot for a main protagonist? I'm not just being facetious here - I like Dragon age, even the writing manages to be quite tolerable, but the original Mass Effect was one of the few games I genuinely regretted paying money for. So is this more of the same old or did they do it better?
The summary, 3rd sentence: "Movie studios will be able to set their own prices, with rental viewing windows ranging from one to 90 days. "
Bravo, sir, bravo!
I also don't understand why he thinks that artists 'need' record labels. What they 'need' is to grow organically to the point of extreme popularity and along the way you are the one deciding the terms of contracts and you are 'the boss' whose accountant and manager work for you and pay everyone up the chain.
There's an assumption implicit here that is all too common: That music needs to be a business, or even that record sales, radio play, the stuff record companies are seen to be good for, are a viable source of income for a large portion of musicians these days. Most of the bands and projects I listen to are far too obscure to make any significant cash on sales of recordings. They don't get any radio play worth mentioning. They know selling music is not, and never will be, something they can rely on as a significant source of income. Still, they continue to make great music, maybe making some cash off gigs, probably making most of their money from something quite separate from their band work.
So the people treating music as a business - feel free to do so, but if you fail to attain the level of profitability you deem necessary, I'm not inclined to jump through hoops to make the world more suitable for your needs. Anyone complaining that music is becoming too difficult to draw a profit from, and that artists will suffer from that is forgetting that the majority of artists already don't, and never will, make enough money to live off. The group of artists that sells enough records and gets enough radio play to get significant income from it is very small and I'm quite prepared to live without them.
C'mon. You have a device that takes digital photos, and a medium to save the data on. Then you have a system that lets you read said data and show it on a digital display. Maybe, as you noted, there's some software that triggers a user interface letting you immediately delete or keep a photo. Which part here is innovative enough to warrant patent protection? How much R&D does that really require? It's a combination of existing technologies, not much more. It's like putting shoe and sidewalk together and patenting walking in a city.
How's that?
The headline plays with the common association between "evolution" and "improvement" in order to gather angry responses and its fair share of taunting.
No it doesn't. "To evolve" is a neutral term, quite apart from "better" and "worse". If people want to get riled up over that, it's their own damn fault.
No, it does, however, raise the possibility of holy tech support. Prayer circles praying for your tech problems to be solved, for a small fee, of course.
I have a terrible feeling that already exists somewhere.