It's an excellent way to compare them. The strength of platforms like iPhoneOS, Android, WindowsCE, etc. is that you can run the same apps across all of the devices. The more devices there are out in the population, the more enticing it is for developers to develop for them. The more developers there are developing for a platform, the more decent quality apps there are, and the more decent quality apps there are the more people will want to buy into the platform. It's a cycle that accelerates at an increasing rate as the install base increases. It's what has made the Apple app store so successful up to this point and will work the same way for Android.
True, but the present trend has it's roots in the Vietnam war. Specifically, the reason why the Bush administration forced all reporters in the war zone to be "embedded" and why they banned photos of coffins coming home was a way to manipulate public opinion. These are actions in direct response to what happened during the Vietnam war.
Time and time again, over the course of many decades, the US military has show that it is completely willing to miss-classify information as "secret" if there is even a slight chance that it will be embracing to them, either individually or as an organization. Specifically, from the Vietnam war on to today, they have made it very clear, publicly, that they actively try to manipulate what information gets out for no other reason than to manipulate public opinion about their operations.
The US is a representative democracy. It's one of the things we are most proud of and most defines us as a country. We don't get to micromanage what our elected officials/military do, but we do get to exert control over them every few years at election time. You can not have a functioning democracy if the government, actively, works to hide the truth from the voters. The entire concept of "controlling public opinion" should be considered a form of treason. If public opinion of a war or administration is only positive because the voters don't really know whats going on then what you have is a de-facto dictatorship/oligarchy.
Wikileaks is a small group of people dealing with lots and lots of data. It's not surprising that they screwed up and released papers with personal info in them. The main point here, though, is that if the US military limited their "secret" information to only what was directly, operationally, vital and released all "secret" info in a timely manner when it didn't, absolutely, need to be confidential any more then there wouldn't be a need for Wikileaks. Like the release of the Pentagon papers before this, groups like Wikileaks have to exist, regardless of any collateral damage from mistakes, until such time as the people hiding the information start treating "state secrets" in a responsible manner.
I'm a big fan of 3D, but I have to agree with you on the depth of field thing. I've gotten used to it, for the most part, but when I started watching 3D films, I had the same problem you did. I suppose that this would be an easy thing to fix for 3D rendered films (Shrek, Toy Story, etc.) but for live action films it will require new cameras with infinite focus.
The term "3D", in this context, is referring to the simulation of the experience of viewing the scene in the video as being three dimensional from the standpoint of the viewer. It makes perfect sense and this crap argument is just an incompetent attempt at pedantry.
I too have worn glasses since childhood. I've never had a problem wearing the 3d glasses over my normal ones, and I purchase my frames from the "big" sized rack at the eye doctor's shop. Don't you think that, maybe, you're just being a little bit of a drama queen?
They were telling you the truth. There's no way the glasses cost $3 in the quantities they buy them in. What you're paying for with the additional $3 is the, extremely expensive, new projector equipment in the theater along with the premium experience that 3D is supposed to be.
Yea, funny (in a totally grasping at straws kind of way because you're desperate to have something bad to say about liberals). Of course, you gloss over the fact that teabaggers chose to call themselves by that name (even the ones that knew what it meant). That would be like liberals being stupid enough to nickname themselves the "cleveland steamers".
So, if I'm to assume that your analogy is comparable, and not completely flawed, am I to assume that he either found or invented a form of human suspended animation and put himself in it until recently, when he was unfrozen, given a law degree, and started practicing law? This is the only way I can think of, off the top of my head, how his experiences as a high-school student could be considered, in any way, comparable to him working as a lawyer now. Otherwise, the main difference that makes your analogy pointless is that HE'S AN ADULT NOW MORON.
Actually, one of the first major actions of the movement was to send tea bags to congressmen as a stunt to try to claim lineage to the original tea party. They, actually, took the name "teabaggers" themselves. Some of them may have been too stupid to know what it really meant, but many knew and wanted it because they intended to "teabag them damn liberals" (I know, classy group of people aren't they). Now, the part of the movement with slightly more class/brains wants to act offended when they get called teabaggers. Sorry, you don't get to associate yourself with those kinds of people and then not have your credibility tarnished by their actions.
If you read the article, then you, undoubtedly, noticed the part where it talks about the fact that, allegedly, Dell, knowingly, replaced bad motherboards with boards they knew contained more flawed capacitors. Also, you company had a few dozen. The companies in the article had thousands. It's very possible Dell responded differently in those situations.
Well, there's always the classics, a pen holding pocket protector on the chest; a slide rule on the fore-arm; and (for those adventurous enough to get a face tattoo) horn rim glasses.
That, and because, back in the days before cars, planes, and good roads, putting your capital in the center of the state made it easier for elected lawmakers from all over to get there and it, also, made it easier for a state government based there to administer the whole state.
"Harry Reid Pushes Nevada As "Saudi Arabia of Geothermal Energy""
Plenty of cheap energy, but they cut your nuts off if you're caught kissing in public. Isn't the crazy theocracy thing supposed to be the Republican's shtick?
Oh, it's even better than that. According to Wikipedia, it's around ~18% of the population that has some form of color blindness. That dwarfs his, apparently made up, statistics on how many people lack depth perception. Not only that, unlike the switch to 3D technology, the switch from black & white to color, inherently, degraded the quality of the shows for color blind people. Before color TV, content makers used all sorts of tricks to enhance the contrast of the black & white image and make the scene better. Some of these tricks included using things like makeup, for the actors, which look horrid in color but increased contrast. Or, background/prop colors, chosen for the same reason, that look odd in color. All of these tricks, which would benefit color blind people, had to be abandoned when color TV was introduced.
Slashdot Mirror
It's an excellent way to compare them. The strength of platforms like iPhoneOS, Android, WindowsCE, etc. is that you can run the same apps across all of the devices. The more devices there are out in the population, the more enticing it is for developers to develop for them. The more developers there are developing for a platform, the more decent quality apps there are, and the more decent quality apps there are the more people will want to buy into the platform. It's a cycle that accelerates at an increasing rate as the install base increases. It's what has made the Apple app store so successful up to this point and will work the same way for Android.
True, but the present trend has it's roots in the Vietnam war. Specifically, the reason why the Bush administration forced all reporters in the war zone to be "embedded" and why they banned photos of coffins coming home was a way to manipulate public opinion. These are actions in direct response to what happened during the Vietnam war.
Time and time again, over the course of many decades, the US military has show that it is completely willing to miss-classify information as "secret" if there is even a slight chance that it will be embracing to them, either individually or as an organization. Specifically, from the Vietnam war on to today, they have made it very clear, publicly, that they actively try to manipulate what information gets out for no other reason than to manipulate public opinion about their operations.
The US is a representative democracy. It's one of the things we are most proud of and most defines us as a country. We don't get to micromanage what our elected officials/military do, but we do get to exert control over them every few years at election time. You can not have a functioning democracy if the government, actively, works to hide the truth from the voters. The entire concept of "controlling public opinion" should be considered a form of treason. If public opinion of a war or administration is only positive because the voters don't really know whats going on then what you have is a de-facto dictatorship/oligarchy.
Wikileaks is a small group of people dealing with lots and lots of data. It's not surprising that they screwed up and released papers with personal info in them. The main point here, though, is that if the US military limited their "secret" information to only what was directly, operationally, vital and released all "secret" info in a timely manner when it didn't, absolutely, need to be confidential any more then there wouldn't be a need for Wikileaks. Like the release of the Pentagon papers before this, groups like Wikileaks have to exist, regardless of any collateral damage from mistakes, until such time as the people hiding the information start treating "state secrets" in a responsible manner.
I'm a big fan of 3D, but I have to agree with you on the depth of field thing. I've gotten used to it, for the most part, but when I started watching 3D films, I had the same problem you did. I suppose that this would be an easy thing to fix for 3D rendered films (Shrek, Toy Story, etc.) but for live action films it will require new cameras with infinite focus.
"I get distracted by the film reel change indicators also."
That, right there, should be all the clue you should need to tell you that your are abnormally over critical.
The term "3D", in this context, is referring to the simulation of the experience of viewing the scene in the video as being three dimensional from the standpoint of the viewer. It makes perfect sense and this crap argument is just an incompetent attempt at pedantry.
I too have worn glasses since childhood. I've never had a problem wearing the 3d glasses over my normal ones, and I purchase my frames from the "big" sized rack at the eye doctor's shop. Don't you think that, maybe, you're just being a little bit of a drama queen?
They were telling you the truth. There's no way the glasses cost $3 in the quantities they buy them in. What you're paying for with the additional $3 is the, extremely expensive, new projector equipment in the theater along with the premium experience that 3D is supposed to be.
SpiderPig?
So, what you're saying is that you don't appreciate his transparent comedy?
I don't think "great" is the word he'd use. Besides, would you really take the "expert opinion" of a guy who's been defeated by a potted plant.
"bearing in mind that evolution doesn't select for comedic value"
One look at the duck billed platypus will tell you that's a damn lie.
Yea, funny (in a totally grasping at straws kind of way because you're desperate to have something bad to say about liberals). Of course, you gloss over the fact that teabaggers chose to call themselves by that name (even the ones that knew what it meant). That would be like liberals being stupid enough to nickname themselves the "cleveland steamers".
I see nothing in your post disproving the references given in that article. As such, your post is worthless.
So, if I'm to assume that your analogy is comparable, and not completely flawed, am I to assume that he either found or invented a form of human suspended animation and put himself in it until recently, when he was unfrozen, given a law degree, and started practicing law? This is the only way I can think of, off the top of my head, how his experiences as a high-school student could be considered, in any way, comparable to him working as a lawyer now. Otherwise, the main difference that makes your analogy pointless is that HE'S AN ADULT NOW MORON.
And, what a surprise, even Wikipedia backs that up (with a picture and everything)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement#Use_of_term_.22teabagger.22
Yea, my understanding is that they, being the class acts that they are, wanted the name because they intended to "teabag them damn liberals".
Actually, one of the first major actions of the movement was to send tea bags to congressmen as a stunt to try to claim lineage to the original tea party. They, actually, took the name "teabaggers" themselves. Some of them may have been too stupid to know what it really meant, but many knew and wanted it because they intended to "teabag them damn liberals" (I know, classy group of people aren't they). Now, the part of the movement with slightly more class/brains wants to act offended when they get called teabaggers. Sorry, you don't get to associate yourself with those kinds of people and then not have your credibility tarnished by their actions.
If you read the article, then you, undoubtedly, noticed the part where it talks about the fact that, allegedly, Dell, knowingly, replaced bad motherboards with boards they knew contained more flawed capacitors. Also, you company had a few dozen. The companies in the article had thousands. It's very possible Dell responded differently in those situations.
Uhm, too little, too late?
Well, there's always the classics, a pen holding pocket protector on the chest; a slide rule on the fore-arm; and (for those adventurous enough to get a face tattoo) horn rim glasses.
Yes, because we should really base our understanding of what people in a certain place are like from crappy sitcoms...
That, and because, back in the days before cars, planes, and good roads, putting your capital in the center of the state made it easier for elected lawmakers from all over to get there and it, also, made it easier for a state government based there to administer the whole state.
"Harry Reid Pushes Nevada As "Saudi Arabia of Geothermal Energy""
Plenty of cheap energy, but they cut your nuts off if you're caught kissing in public. Isn't the crazy theocracy thing supposed to be the Republican's shtick?
Oh, it's even better than that. According to Wikipedia, it's around ~18% of the population that has some form of color blindness. That dwarfs his, apparently made up, statistics on how many people lack depth perception. Not only that, unlike the switch to 3D technology, the switch from black & white to color, inherently, degraded the quality of the shows for color blind people. Before color TV, content makers used all sorts of tricks to enhance the contrast of the black & white image and make the scene better. Some of these tricks included using things like makeup, for the actors, which look horrid in color but increased contrast. Or, background/prop colors, chosen for the same reason, that look odd in color. All of these tricks, which would benefit color blind people, had to be abandoned when color TV was introduced.