His argument was that if you compete to be good at academia, then there are more potential jobs to take advantage of the skills you gain from competition, than there are jobs where we need people who are extremely good at athletics. There's no paradox or contradiction, and you're misusing the word irony.
Well, I can sit in my house and write a book and I can make a printing press and a I can make copies and I can sell them.
On the other hand, I could spend the rest of my natural life trying to design my own e-book hardware and software completely from scratch on my own. And I would never get anywhere; Its likely I couldn't even produce my own vacuum tubes or transistors, much less assemble a modern architecture, which are ridiculously complex and have hundreds if not thousands and thousands of engineers working on them all the time.
It takes less jobs to produce books than papyrus! This damn printing press makes it too easy; what about the good old days where we had to have hundreds of men employed copying books over and over by hand?!
Yeah, because you don't need a man to build the printing press, or to sell the printing press, or to operate it... And yeah, the amount of men to operate a printing press is going to be much less than the amount of men required to translate book pages by hand over and over. But NEW jobs come about that did not exist before, and they replace the "old jobs" that you don't need as many people to fulfill.
And yet, in addition to the people running the website, you need people writing website software, people hosting servers and data-centers, people who are sys-admins and keep the servers running, people who engineer those servers, the motherboards, the processors, the RAM, then there's the people who work on the e-book itself and the e-book software and OS, which are separate from the people who publish books on the e-book reader (so now there are two publishers where before there was one) I could go on and on. I don't think you've thought it through. And I don't think either of us can say definitively "x jobs were lost" or "x jobs were gained" so my point is that whatever it is, its pretty negligible.
Face it, this is how our system works. As new technologies are developed, in gross figures, less labor is needed.
Only if you hold EVERYTHING ELSE constant. And you don't. As we get more technology, we find more products that the average consumer requires. We find new things that become a part of the expected quality of life. We can support a larger population, etc. etc. etc. Did the invention of A/C ruin jobs? No, it created tons of A/C repairmen. Oh, but think of the poor fan-holding slaves! Where will people find work if all they can do is hold a fan?
If technology was really the cause, then China would be losing jobs too over time. Its not a constant downward trend, its not that technology removes jobs from the world. Yes, the US has lost some jobs, but thats a result of the international market and our current downhill economy, with a currency that nobody believes in anymore, and all kinds of corporate taxes. Creating the e-book doesn't lose jobs; maybe there are less book distributors. But what about the new e-book designers, the e-book distributors, the website authors, the data entry clerks, the call center customer support... it goes on and on. Its just that nothing is produced in the United States anymore, we buy all our chips overseas. But that doesn't mean its technology's fault.
Where are you going to buy the e-books for your iPad? They don't come from thin air, and the iPad doesn't write articles itself. Just because we've moved from brick-and-mortar distribution to digital distribution doesn't mean ANY jobs were lost, they were just MOVED.
Seriously, this made me sick to read. Rep. Jackson needs to keep his mouth shut on subjects he knows nothing about.
Absolutely agreed; however, it shouldn't have to be this way. Its *wrong* that when you buy an HP laptop, you're either left with something so full of bloat-ware its has difficulty running software it is rated to perform well on. If you're savvy, you IMMIDEATELY fdisk and install your OS of choice. That shouldn't be! This means companies are ignoring their customers. When that happens in capitalism, the company is supposed to suffer the wrath of the consumers. Unfortunately, most people are unaware of this issue. We need to bring it to everyone's attention, so that it really starts to get the companies' attention.
They change their attitude, or they can file bankruptcy.
Now hold the phone, I never said such a thing. I just suggested rather than considering buying your teenagers gifts all the time, you treat them like adults and you just expect them to fulfill their responsibilities (school, chores, work) and if they do so, you reward them with an allowance. Then they can spend that on what they want, not what you are willing to buy them, and then can also learn the value of a dollar and saving vs. spending.
Thats a decent idea, except that the brain seems more than comfortable with reconstructing its self-image on the fly. Many experiments have shown the brain, when presented with information that the body has dramatically shifted in proportion, just runs with the new information and incorporates it into how it works.
Agh, can't remember the name of the experiment for the life of me, google fails me. But if you take somebody and close their eyes, and touch their nose, and then simultaneously you have their finger touch your nose, except you're standing right in-front of them, so that to them it feels like they are touching their own nose, but their nose is much further away than it should be. Instead of becoming confused, the brain almost *instantaneously* adapts its understanding and you immediately visualize yourself as a person with a gigantic nose, and everything then makes sense. Then you take the blindfold off and you go right back to thinking about yourself as a normally nosed person. Switching back and forth doesn't seem to have any long term damage.
Thanks so much for posting this, I cannot agree enough. People are complaining about 3D left and right, and it sounds like so much "TV will rot your brain". Its the same old fear-mongering about something new. People just aren't comfortable with change.
It is *possible* that something could be bad for your brain / eyes with 3D movies, but I seriously doubt it, and TFA certainly doesn't give me reasons to think so. You already explained why very succinctly.
Probably equally fast. If you get sick playing a 3D first person shooter even on a 2D display, then you've got a deeper problem, something about how your brain handles animation or perspective. Its possible your eyes just need to adjust. But what the parent was getting at, was that these are actually entirely different parts of the brain; they're not related necessarily. You might be fine with stereoscopic perspective, although the 3DS is still going to be using an LCD screen to display images in perspective, and its still going to trigger whatever bothers you about 2D games.
Or, I don't know why I didn't think of this, you could just get a pair of 3D movie glasses, remove one lens, rotate it 90 degrees, and then put it / tape it back into the glasses. Whala!
Yes, that would actually work perfectly, though then you could only see out of one eye, obviously.
An even better solution, the way 3D movie glasses work is each lens is polarized perpendicular to the other lens. That way, light can be directed to only be seen by one eye, and completely filtered out by the other. If you had a pair of movie glasses where both lenses were of the same orientation of polarizing filter, then you would only see the left or the right image in both of your eyes, effectively getting the movie in 2D.
As an experiment, you could try just wearing sunglasses into a theater! If they're polarized (good ones definitely are) and in the same orientation (I'm not sure why sunglasses would rotate the orientation, so they're probably the same) then they should work perfectly! The only problem would be that it might also be dark, haha.
But yes, if you're ever nauseated by a 3D movie, you can always watch it in 2D by closing one eye. Maybe you could switch of which eye is closed?
Actually, Nintendo thought of you, and many other people, already. There is a built in slider that turns down or off the 3D effect. You can turn it off, and never have to worry about seeing 3D, and still enjoy EVERY SINGLE game or app on the 3DS. You don't even have to worry about which developers support you; the hardware already allows you to play all games in 2D. Nintendo is already advising that all young children should only play in 2D in case of eye strain. Its very unlikely that some developer is going to require you to judge a distance in the game based on the 3D perspective; its not accurate or dramatic enough for that. So those who use it will just get an extra "neato", but you can still enjoy the new hardware and new games.
The principle is very similar to lenticular lens, and some 3D TVs use that method exactly I believe. However, the 3DS seems to use Parallax Barrier, which uses small slits in order to create the different eye angles, where lenticular uses rounded transparent surfaces in order to refract the light into different eye angles.
Don't buy your teenagers anything. I worked, earned money, and bought the things *I* wanted when I was a teenager.
If you like 3D, go buy it, for yourself. If you don't like it, then shush up. Nobody's making you buy anything. Thats how capitalism works.
I know I love the added perspective, and think everybody is complaining over nothing. IMO, 3D is a big move, like going from B&W to Color. Once the technology is good enough, we're going to move almost all displays to 3D. Maybe parallax barrier / lenticular lens isn't the right solution, and maybe this will fade out. The earlier 3D movies were a "gimmick" because the 3D effect was pretty lame, and the movies had to be rendered in RED and BLUE, which made them look like a terrible mix of brown. Now, 3D movies are becoming popular again because they have better glasses, that allow color. Maybe people will get tired of that too, but in time we'll have a better solution that works for everybody without any glasses.
There will always be a few who have vision problems who do not want to watch things in 3D, but tough. It'll still be around. But you can't hold back the public because of a few people's desires. I'm sure blind people would greatly prefer it if radio dramas had lived on and movies had never become popular. Is that a reason to ban movies?
We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune.
We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week. But all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more.
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Doom was absolutely not done with ray casting. The scene is composed, piece by piece, by rendering on-the-fly approximations of the walls and ceilings based on a 2D level map. Nothing was truly 3D (so I guess thats where you're calling it 2.5D), but nothing used ray-tracing or ray-casting either. Maybe they threw a few rays around to find which walls it hit, but they didn't do raytracing or raycasting per-pixel to calculate color values. As soon as it knows which wall is where, it just does a fill on that whole polygon. Also, Doom starts in the back and works its way forward (painter's algorithm) and overlaps many different parts of the scene; it draws the whole skybox, then it draws a roof on top of it, so you can see the sky if there's a window. If it was using raytracing this would never happen.
All I know is that they showed off the Joker's fatality at E3 and it was pretty violent, and then the next year they showed off the final game and the fatalities had been watered down. If they were really planning on a T rating all along, then they didn't know what they were getting in to.
Slashdot Mirror
His argument was that if you compete to be good at academia, then there are more potential jobs to take advantage of the skills you gain from competition, than there are jobs where we need people who are extremely good at athletics. There's no paradox or contradiction, and you're misusing the word irony.
quantum mechanics is HARDLY the only physical property which applies to human biology...
Well, I can sit in my house and write a book and I can make a printing press and a I can make copies and I can sell them.
On the other hand, I could spend the rest of my natural life trying to design my own e-book hardware and software completely from scratch on my own. And I would never get anywhere; Its likely I couldn't even produce my own vacuum tubes or transistors, much less assemble a modern architecture, which are ridiculously complex and have hundreds if not thousands and thousands of engineers working on them all the time.
It takes less jobs to produce books than papyrus! This damn printing press makes it too easy; what about the good old days where we had to have hundreds of men employed copying books over and over by hand?!
Yeah, because you don't need a man to build the printing press, or to sell the printing press, or to operate it... And yeah, the amount of men to operate a printing press is going to be much less than the amount of men required to translate book pages by hand over and over. But NEW jobs come about that did not exist before, and they replace the "old jobs" that you don't need as many people to fulfill.
And yet, in addition to the people running the website, you need people writing website software, people hosting servers and data-centers, people who are sys-admins and keep the servers running, people who engineer those servers, the motherboards, the processors, the RAM, then there's the people who work on the e-book itself and the e-book software and OS, which are separate from the people who publish books on the e-book reader (so now there are two publishers where before there was one) I could go on and on. I don't think you've thought it through. And I don't think either of us can say definitively "x jobs were lost" or "x jobs were gained" so my point is that whatever it is, its pretty negligible.
Face it, this is how our system works. As new technologies are developed, in gross figures, less labor is needed.
Only if you hold EVERYTHING ELSE constant. And you don't. As we get more technology, we find more products that the average consumer requires. We find new things that become a part of the expected quality of life. We can support a larger population, etc. etc. etc. Did the invention of A/C ruin jobs? No, it created tons of A/C repairmen. Oh, but think of the poor fan-holding slaves! Where will people find work if all they can do is hold a fan?
If technology was really the cause, then China would be losing jobs too over time. Its not a constant downward trend, its not that technology removes jobs from the world. Yes, the US has lost some jobs, but thats a result of the international market and our current downhill economy, with a currency that nobody believes in anymore, and all kinds of corporate taxes. Creating the e-book doesn't lose jobs; maybe there are less book distributors. But what about the new e-book designers, the e-book distributors, the website authors, the data entry clerks, the call center customer support... it goes on and on. Its just that nothing is produced in the United States anymore, we buy all our chips overseas. But that doesn't mean its technology's fault.
Video killed the radio star.
Does that mean television ruined the economy?
Where are you going to buy the e-books for your iPad? They don't come from thin air, and the iPad doesn't write articles itself. Just because we've moved from brick-and-mortar distribution to digital distribution doesn't mean ANY jobs were lost, they were just MOVED.
Seriously, this made me sick to read. Rep. Jackson needs to keep his mouth shut on subjects he knows nothing about.
Yeah, The Sun is equivalent to The National Inquirer. Are we going to see "bat boy" stories on /. now?
Absolutely agreed; however, it shouldn't have to be this way. Its *wrong* that when you buy an HP laptop, you're either left with something so full of bloat-ware its has difficulty running software it is rated to perform well on. If you're savvy, you IMMIDEATELY fdisk and install your OS of choice. That shouldn't be! This means companies are ignoring their customers. When that happens in capitalism, the company is supposed to suffer the wrath of the consumers. Unfortunately, most people are unaware of this issue. We need to bring it to everyone's attention, so that it really starts to get the companies' attention.
They change their attitude, or they can file bankruptcy.
Sadly, Sony was not required to admit fault in the issue.
Now hold the phone, I never said such a thing. I just suggested rather than considering buying your teenagers gifts all the time, you treat them like adults and you just expect them to fulfill their responsibilities (school, chores, work) and if they do so, you reward them with an allowance. Then they can spend that on what they want, not what you are willing to buy them, and then can also learn the value of a dollar and saving vs. spending.
Thats a decent idea, except that the brain seems more than comfortable with reconstructing its self-image on the fly. Many experiments have shown the brain, when presented with information that the body has dramatically shifted in proportion, just runs with the new information and incorporates it into how it works.
Agh, can't remember the name of the experiment for the life of me, google fails me. But if you take somebody and close their eyes, and touch their nose, and then simultaneously you have their finger touch your nose, except you're standing right in-front of them, so that to them it feels like they are touching their own nose, but their nose is much further away than it should be. Instead of becoming confused, the brain almost *instantaneously* adapts its understanding and you immediately visualize yourself as a person with a gigantic nose, and everything then makes sense. Then you take the blindfold off and you go right back to thinking about yourself as a normally nosed person. Switching back and forth doesn't seem to have any long term damage.
Of course, could be different. Just a thought.
Thanks so much for posting this, I cannot agree enough. People are complaining about 3D left and right, and it sounds like so much "TV will rot your brain". Its the same old fear-mongering about something new. People just aren't comfortable with change.
It is *possible* that something could be bad for your brain / eyes with 3D movies, but I seriously doubt it, and TFA certainly doesn't give me reasons to think so. You already explained why very succinctly.
Probably equally fast. If you get sick playing a 3D first person shooter even on a 2D display, then you've got a deeper problem, something about how your brain handles animation or perspective. Its possible your eyes just need to adjust. But what the parent was getting at, was that these are actually entirely different parts of the brain; they're not related necessarily. You might be fine with stereoscopic perspective, although the 3DS is still going to be using an LCD screen to display images in perspective, and its still going to trigger whatever bothers you about 2D games.
Or, I don't know why I didn't think of this, you could just get a pair of 3D movie glasses, remove one lens, rotate it 90 degrees, and then put it / tape it back into the glasses. Whala!
Yes, that would actually work perfectly, though then you could only see out of one eye, obviously.
An even better solution, the way 3D movie glasses work is each lens is polarized perpendicular to the other lens. That way, light can be directed to only be seen by one eye, and completely filtered out by the other. If you had a pair of movie glasses where both lenses were of the same orientation of polarizing filter, then you would only see the left or the right image in both of your eyes, effectively getting the movie in 2D.
As an experiment, you could try just wearing sunglasses into a theater! If they're polarized (good ones definitely are) and in the same orientation (I'm not sure why sunglasses would rotate the orientation, so they're probably the same) then they should work perfectly! The only problem would be that it might also be dark, haha.
But yes, if you're ever nauseated by a 3D movie, you can always watch it in 2D by closing one eye. Maybe you could switch of which eye is closed?
Actually, Nintendo thought of you, and many other people, already. There is a built in slider that turns down or off the 3D effect. You can turn it off, and never have to worry about seeing 3D, and still enjoy EVERY SINGLE game or app on the 3DS. You don't even have to worry about which developers support you; the hardware already allows you to play all games in 2D. Nintendo is already advising that all young children should only play in 2D in case of eye strain. Its very unlikely that some developer is going to require you to judge a distance in the game based on the 3D perspective; its not accurate or dramatic enough for that. So those who use it will just get an extra "neato", but you can still enjoy the new hardware and new games.
So feel free to attempt it.
The principle is very similar to lenticular lens, and some 3D TVs use that method exactly I believe. However, the 3DS seems to use Parallax Barrier, which uses small slits in order to create the different eye angles, where lenticular uses rounded transparent surfaces in order to refract the light into different eye angles.
Don't buy your teenagers anything. I worked, earned money, and bought the things *I* wanted when I was a teenager.
If you like 3D, go buy it, for yourself. If you don't like it, then shush up. Nobody's making you buy anything. Thats how capitalism works.
I know I love the added perspective, and think everybody is complaining over nothing. IMO, 3D is a big move, like going from B&W to Color. Once the technology is good enough, we're going to move almost all displays to 3D. Maybe parallax barrier / lenticular lens isn't the right solution, and maybe this will fade out. The earlier 3D movies were a "gimmick" because the 3D effect was pretty lame, and the movies had to be rendered in RED and BLUE, which made them look like a terrible mix of brown. Now, 3D movies are becoming popular again because they have better glasses, that allow color. Maybe people will get tired of that too, but in time we'll have a better solution that works for everybody without any glasses.
There will always be a few who have vision problems who do not want to watch things in 3D, but tough. It'll still be around. But you can't hold back the public because of a few people's desires. I'm sure blind people would greatly prefer it if radio dramas had lived on and movies had never become popular. Is that a reason to ban movies?
We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune.
We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week. But all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more.
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Doom was absolutely not done with ray casting. The scene is composed, piece by piece, by rendering on-the-fly approximations of the walls and ceilings based on a 2D level map. Nothing was truly 3D (so I guess thats where you're calling it 2.5D), but nothing used ray-tracing or ray-casting either. Maybe they threw a few rays around to find which walls it hit, but they didn't do raytracing or raycasting per-pixel to calculate color values. As soon as it knows which wall is where, it just does a fill on that whole polygon. Also, Doom starts in the back and works its way forward (painter's algorithm) and overlaps many different parts of the scene; it draws the whole skybox, then it draws a roof on top of it, so you can see the sky if there's a window. If it was using raytracing this would never happen.
All I know is that they showed off the Joker's fatality at E3 and it was pretty violent, and then the next year they showed off the final game and the fatalities had been watered down. If they were really planning on a T rating all along, then they didn't know what they were getting in to.
They tried it with Mortal Kombat vs DC Comics. Switched it to the T rating at the last minute, and the game did terrible.
I think they heard the complaints, and have realized that violence is about all there is to the MK brand.
Thats inconceivable!