Intel GPU technology is so far behind AMD/ATI and NVIDIA, it makes sense that it has not drawn as much attention. The graphics side of Fusion is far more advanced than the integrated graphics we have seen on motherboards to this point as well.
There will still be that same ability to get separate components, but the GPU element is being moved from the chipset onto the CPU(now called an APU).
There really have been only three general configurations: 1: CPU with integrated graphics on the motherboard 2: CPU with integrated graphics on the motherboard PLUS a discrete video card/GPU. 3: CPU without integrated graphics on the motherboard with ONLY one or more video cards.
So, what this does is to update 1 and 2, since you can still add a discrete video card. Since the graphics portion of Fusion is better than what Intel offers, this isn't a bad setup. There will also be the option to swap the APU with a faster version that has both a faster CPU core as well as faster GPU core in most motherboards.
Yes, there are certain advantages offered by the APU design, but it isn't an "all or nothing" offering, AMD will continue to offer straight CPUs(with Bulldozer being the next core design), and if you think about it, AMD may go to a tick-tock design like Intel has, but rather than it being based on core design and fab processor technology going back and forth, we may see AMD going CPU core design, GPU design, and then APU to combine the latest CPU and GPU designs.
Right now, many are waiting for AMD to release its first all new core design since 2003, since that will hopefully get AMD the better CPU core performance that many have been waiting for.
AMD will still make straight CPUs as well as GPUs, but Fusion makes sense for the low end of the market that was already going to use integrated graphics, the APU makes more sense. You can also add a video card to a desktop, or possibly some laptops that have a Fusion APU. As it stands now, Llano is still going to be using CPU cores that are based on current Athlon 2/Phenom 2 cores. Bulldozer is the next core design from AMD and will have both CPU-only implementations, and then later we will see new Fusion APUs that use that new processor core design.
Think of it the way you do computers today, you have your low end with integrated graphics that NEVER gets updated, then you have your mid-range, and then you have the high end. For MOST users, there is virtually no need for a machine that is more powerful than what Llano offers, but there are still a good number who want or need more.
When you design a game with stats and grinding as the key to keeping players going, that is when developers get locked into needing new content to keep the players interested. Many single player games have a fairly large world, but because everything is STATIC, and does not really change, other than introducing new NPCs or doing the occasional update, you end up with a pretty boring game WORLD, where expanding on the world is the source of keeping things interesting.
If the game world were more dynamic, with a true economy and world that evolves over time, where NPC thieves look around the game world for things to steal, or just to survive, and where all NPCs actually live their lives, with or without player involvement, THEN you get a more interesting environment. Humans that are monitoring the world so that players can't "game the system" would of course be needed, but AI needs to become the center of a solid MMO, and letting the world evolve.
If you play a character, and you travel to a town, every NPC would have a history and story that has evolved from interaction with other NPCs as well as interaction with the players. Once you get THAT sort of situation down, the game world itself provides the changes to content, and developers can focus on larger events, such as earthquakes, floods, or other natural disasters. Underground cave complexes could open up to add more monsters to the world, but in general, people should find entertainment just in wandering and exploring the world, because it SHOULD be large enough where it would take players a long time just to go from one end of the world to the others.
Any new architecture is always a huge risk when it comes right down to it, and both HP and Oracle were foolish enough to buy into what Intel was selling at the time. Hell, it took a LONG time before x86-64 aka AMD64 was supported, so the difference is that people listened to Intel when Intel released a bad product while they pretty much ignored AMD when it released a great product. And of course, both HP and Oracle didn't have people who remembered the failed attempts of the Pentium Pro, which was also a huge failure and didn't sell.
Basically, Intel can't be trusted when it comes to a whole new architecture, because it just won't sell without any really significant advantages. The only new architecture that WOULD take off would be a new design that is aimed at the millions upon millions of CONSUMERS, and that is why ARM has been doing well. The days when "start with the stuff only a huge corporation would want and then let it trickle down" would work have been over since 1985. Microchannel failed, which was the last time IBM tried to make a major change in the PC industry, so is it any wonder that you really need something REALLY different and better?
Well, now that Steve Jobs has moved on to giving oral sex to the execs at Verizon as well as AT&T, AT&T people don't seem quite as fixated on the iPhone. The Pre 3 SHOULD do well as long as there is some solid advertising. Hell, the Blackberry Torch had more advertising behind it than the Pre Plus, and the Pre Plus WAS competitive compared to the iPhone 3GS at the time it was released.
How about the Palm/WebOS based phones? Silent launches, put in display cases with the keyboard slider closed and the phone left off, sales people who had no clue....both Verizon and AT&T could have sold quite a few Palm Pre Plus phones(which are and were vastly improved over the original Palm Pre). Manufacturers can NOT count on the carriers to actually SELL phones, unless they are a flagship device that is exclusive to that carrier. Now, a big source of the problem is the way both Verizon and AT&T obsess about a single device, and everything else means nothing. For Verizon, the Droid branded devices are the only ones that Verizon sales reps would even encourage people to buy, and AT&T was so busy getting blown by Steve Jobs that you couldn't find an AT&T employee who cared about anything besides an iPhone.
Things have changed a LITTLE, but it really feels like the only way to get Verizon or AT&T sales people to sell a phone is to put huge incentives in place for the individual employees.
That is simple, stop trying to save the starving people of other nations that can't possibly hope to sustain their CURRENT populations, and they will either survive as their population goes down, or they will die off and we won't be worried about people starving in those nations. If a nation has nothing to trade for the help it needs, then why TRY to sustain the people there? Obviously, responding to things like earthquakes and volcanoes is an area where help makes sense, but for too long, we have watched governments that already run at a deficit spend money that they don't have.
College is something that most consider is required to get a good job, and that has been the case since the 1980s, perhaps even late 1970s. The problem is that a high school education alone is not enough to get the education needed for many jobs, so college is NEEDED. Most geeks DO hold to the philosophy that you do what you have to do to get the knowledge you need, and being surrounded by others who are in the science and technical professions is also important to that desire for knowledge, so college fits that too.
Now, there is one vital part that you CAN get from a college education when it comes to programming, and that is the idea that programming is half about getting the program working, and the other half is to have elegant code. This is something that is lost on many programmers today, but it is true that efficient code is something that not enough programmers strive to produce. Get the job done, brute force is fine, even when a more elegant solution would get the job done faster seems to be the way many applications are written, and from my own background, that is the WRONG approach. Getting the job done is just half of the job.
The other thing to remember is that many successful PEOPLE have dropped out of college to start their business. They did get at least SOME of the college education, but the academic life does not fit those who in general are looking for the BEST ways to do things when school administrators generally are more interested in how things appear to be, and those who don't look and act the part just are not seen as acceptable.
Didn't Apple already start that by not allowing adult content in the app store, and by making it clear that they will not allow certain types of applications to be installed on an iOS device without the user jailbreaking it first?
This is the reason why the "lets install every application and utility that any user MAY want" by default is the worst thing for computer security. Linux, MacOS X, or Windows at their cores are fairly solid at this point, but it is all of the other garbage that also comes with that core that causes the security problems. Linux with a MINIMAL install that does not install any server software will be the most secure, because you don't have as many attack vectors. Microsoft Windows and MacOS X both give virtually no choice to the user during the install(no advanced install to allow a user to NOT install unwanted stuff), so if you want to trim down the OS, you have to do it after the fact.
There are many who will never want to share files or anything else with other computers on a home network, yet there is no easy way to NOT install that functionality, and it gets turned on by default. Where's the approach of "Ask the user if they want to share their files" and then install/enable that functionality? Why not give more control over what gets enabled/disabled without manually turning obscure services on/off?
That is a foolish way to look at it, since there are so many layers between the kernel and the user at this point. You can take a great foundation and put something with a poor structure on top of it, or you can work around a weak foundation with a lot of engineering on top to avoid problems. MacOS X has been proven to have a lot of weaknesses, and while the CORE of the OS may be good, there are many flaws on top that can be infected or exploited. Only an idiot would assume that they are safe with MacOS right now since Apple takes years to fix any vulnerability that is found.
Much of this depends on the distribution and how many packages come properly configured out of the box vs. just installing a package with a poor or incomplete configuration. If your default install installs a web server when you are not planning on actually using the web server, that opens the door to a LOT of potential security problems. As with everything else, running more than you want to run is the bad thing, and is the biggest source of security problems.
Linux, BSD, or any other UNIX or UNIX-like OS can be more secure, or it can leave the doors wide open for someone to break in. How many distributions are there again, and are they all equally secure out of the box?
In this day and age, why should we be worried about providing Internet access to EVERYONE? If our neighbors were actually giving back and helping society, that would be one thing, but in a world where EVERYONE is only looking to take as much as they can while giving back as little as they can, it makes NO sense to worry about making WiFi available to EVERYONE. As I said, I am all for helping your neighbors when they in turn help you back, but these days, I don't see acts of kindness, and helping others EVER result in any real benefit, unless you get a tax deduction from it. In many cases, your neighbors make just as much if not more than you do, so why should YOU pay for Internet access when you get zero in return? Why should someone with a laptop just get free Internet access when they don't do ANYTHING that will ever benefit you, even in a long and roundabout way?
Those who have the least tend to want to see EVERYTHING be free and open, while those who have to work for a living and struggle to pay their bills tend to expect that if they are having financial difficulties, then why give ANYTHING away for free when no one else is even helping them in any way, shape, or form? It is like the classic song, "Signs". When you have nothing, and have never had to work or take responsibility for PAYING to maintain something you own, you want EVERYTHING to be free and open from rules or cost, but the moment you learn the pain of paying bills, you have a lot more respect for others who have to pay their own bills and have responsibilities.
When others start helping make life easier for ME, then I will be more inclined to make life for others, but until that happens, the government doesn't make life easier, and all the millions of illegal immigrants don't make life easier(or even learn the language of the land they have moved to) , then why should I turn around and make life easier for THEM? Let the wealthy start the trend since they have DISPOSABLE income.
People would not want to have a huge array of solar panels near them, but having solar panels on the roof is fine. Picture a quarter acre worth of solar panels taking up space next door to you to provide power to your neighbor....doesn't seem very attractive, so it lowers the surrounding property values. If your neighbor has solar panels on the roof, that won't generate that negative reaction.
Is 3D in general what you don't like, or just the generally poor 3D implementation? If Thor was done with amazing 3D where everything had a nice depth to it, without gimmicks that had isolated objects popping off the screen, would you be saying the same thing?
This is an implementation issue rather than a "bad idea" issue. If you are at home, you have a 2D TV, or have it set to 2D, and your problem would be solved. The technology to display 3D is what needs to be developed, rather than the problem being 3D itself. The early implementations of color were HORRIBLE, and have you ever seen some of the early attempts to add color to black and white films?!?
Now, going back to those previous advances, color blind people didn't like the move to color. People with hearing problems did not get the full effect of stereo and surround sound. Single-eye blind people will still see a 3D film in 2D since, as I said, the depth of field is there in the filming, but if done properly, will not be screwed up by the "objects passing through the screen". I don't care if I have to wear glasses for the 3D effect, and if you don't want to, you can watch it in a different theater that is only 2D, it's no big deal.
You assume that long-term, that all of the issues are going to remain, in the same way many early computer programs for the PC ASSUMED your computer was going to be running a 4.77MHz, so had problems on faster computers. Never assume that things will not improve over time when it comes to this sort of thing. Blame poor implementation, not a good idea that is flawed by poor implementation.
When TV(broadcast/cable) does not offer much if any 3D content, and the number of 3D BluRay titles is also fairly low, there will be very little desire to buy special 3D components. Flat panel/LED/LCD/Plasma TVs make sense, and you DO see these selling for those who can afford them, and normal BluRay players are also selling at an acceptable rate based on the number of HD compatible TVs out there. It really comes down to the amount of content available that takes advantage of the technology.
Do you remember laser disc? There was a fairly low number of movies available, so it made it very difficult for many people to justify the purchase, and as a result, the technology died. DVD was much better from the start when it came to what was available, and the cost of players was also lower, even for early adopters, so it did well. BluRay on the other hand, requires a HD display, and since not everyone has HD at this point, you don't see the WalMart shoppers running out and buying them. 3D continues, where many/most people have not caught up to the LAST generation yet, and that will keep people from spending the extra money.
If you look back at movies and TV, you see this same complaint against any new advance, that the improvements are useless. Silent film to "talkies" was a clear advance, and I am sure that there were SOME complaints from those who didn't care for it. When color came out, some saw it as useless and then there were more complaints. Color TV was the same way, an added expense that did not add to the quality of the movie or show in the eyes of some. When stereo first came out, again, some complained and they didn't hear how it improved things, or surround sound. All of these things added to the overall experience of going to the movies or watching TV/movies at home, even if not everyone notices or cares about the improvements that have been added.
I remember the first time I watched Star Trek: The Next Generation in stereo, there was a background ship hum that on older "mono" TVs just did not have that added to the experience of watching it. It may not have been amazing by modern standards, but it was cool that it was an obvious improvement. For surround, watch most action movies with a decent surround sound system, and you can hear bullets flying AROUND you, some behind, some moving from behind and then to the front. This is the sort of thing that, as I said, enhances the experience, yet would not be "required" for the movie or show to be entertaining.
So, 3D. For the most part, most 3D is very poorly implemented, with a few objects that pop out of the screen at the viewer, and does NOT enhance the viewing experience as a whole. The 3D is really just an extra "layer" that is added, and in these cases, those shooting down 3D are correct, it is NOT worth extra money in these cases. Now, Avatar is an example of 3D done fairly well, because there is a true "depth" throughout the movie, at least that was my impression when I saw it in IMAX. It wasn't about objects popping off the screen, it was about the entire movie feeling like there was more depth to EVERYTHING. This is where people want to see 3D go, where 3D isn't just for "cute" effects, but enhances how things look overall. If the home 3D experience is anything like what they did with Avatar on IMAX, then 3D is a very good addition.
All special effects have always had their origins start in a way that it really WAS just a gimmick, and often replaced good acting or story, but as time has gone on, special effects have improved to the point where even some modern commercials would awe someone from the 1970s. In time, there will be no extra expense for filming in 3D, and the costs will drop. As I said, the real key is if 3D focuses on adding that depth of field to all scenes, rather than being focused on a few objects that just pop off the screen but otherwise leaves the movie as a 2D film. Only time will tell if 3D matures into a true way to enhance the movie-going experience.
Not everyone has a flat panel/HD capable TV, so it makes sense that for those who don't have a flat panel, a normal DVD player is already better than the average TV. As more and more people replace their old CRT based TV with a flat panel, there will be a corresponding replacement of DVD players as well. If HDMI cables were also provided, the reduction in cables to connect things together would also encourage many people to make the switch.
Costs on flat panel displays have been dropping, so there will be a time in the next few years where people will FINALLY stop buying those old TVs, and Blu-Ray will at that point make a LOT more sense. $50 Blue-Ray players would also help with the adoption of the technology.
The problem with Word and Excel formats is that the results you get will often change from computer to computer, or version to version. There are places where MS Word 2010 will render documents slightly differently than Word 2007, or 2003. There are clearly times when all you care about is editing and content, but when you want to push out something that SHOULD be presented the EXACT same way, no matter what the platform is, the Microsoft formats do not do the job.
Tax forms, or the official document manuals(that are no longer printed and included with almost all products) should always be presented to users the way they are intended to be, and that is where PDF comes in. I do feel that most people do NOT need the new features in the latest PDF formats, so a locked down "minimal" PDF just for documentation, without all this active content stuff could be built in and could be VERY fast if done correctly.
This is where you are mixing up the facts and the discussions. The creation of Israel in the first place is not something that should be debated at this point, it was done long enough ago that arguing the existence of Israel is like debating about if the Civil War was justified. Looking at new events as they happen and then discussing who is right or wrong about their actions IS something to be debated.
So, let's look at some of the more recent activities. Israel has made a number of gestures to try to make peace with the Palestinians, and the result was having rockets fired from Palestine into Israel, over and over and over again. Now, if your neighbor kept shooting at your house every now and then, not doing any MAJOR damage, but being a threat, how long would YOU take it before you did something serious to stop it? Would you just buy a gun, or would you go for a rocket launcher and knock down the house next door?
You can also argue that LTE as a fundamental technology is a fourth generation protocol, even if the initial implementation isn't any faster than the latest 3G-based implementations. In time, it will be easier to evolve LTE to provide faster speeds than the 3G protocols.
So not ALLOWING Flash, even when Adobe does all the work is being good? How about FORCING publishers to sell their content at a 30 percent loss on the App Store, that is being good?
Slashdot Mirror
Intel GPU technology is so far behind AMD/ATI and NVIDIA, it makes sense that it has not drawn as much attention. The graphics side of Fusion is far more advanced than the integrated graphics we have seen on motherboards to this point as well.
There will still be that same ability to get separate components, but the GPU element is being moved from the chipset onto the CPU(now called an APU).
There really have been only three general configurations:
1: CPU with integrated graphics on the motherboard
2: CPU with integrated graphics on the motherboard PLUS a discrete video card/GPU.
3: CPU without integrated graphics on the motherboard with ONLY one or more video cards.
So, what this does is to update 1 and 2, since you can still add a discrete video card. Since the graphics portion of Fusion is better than what Intel offers, this isn't a bad setup. There will also be the option to swap the APU with a faster version that has both a faster CPU core as well as faster GPU core in most motherboards.
Yes, there are certain advantages offered by the APU design, but it isn't an "all or nothing" offering, AMD will continue to offer straight CPUs(with Bulldozer being the next core design), and if you think about it, AMD may go to a tick-tock design like Intel has, but rather than it being based on core design and fab processor technology going back and forth, we may see AMD going CPU core design, GPU design, and then APU to combine the latest CPU and GPU designs.
Right now, many are waiting for AMD to release its first all new core design since 2003, since that will hopefully get AMD the better CPU core performance that many have been waiting for.
AMD will still make straight CPUs as well as GPUs, but Fusion makes sense for the low end of the market that was already going to use integrated graphics, the APU makes more sense. You can also add a video card to a desktop, or possibly some laptops that have a Fusion APU. As it stands now, Llano is still going to be using CPU cores that are based on current Athlon 2/Phenom 2 cores. Bulldozer is the next core design from AMD and will have both CPU-only implementations, and then later we will see new Fusion APUs that use that new processor core design.
Think of it the way you do computers today, you have your low end with integrated graphics that NEVER gets updated, then you have your mid-range, and then you have the high end. For MOST users, there is virtually no need for a machine that is more powerful than what Llano offers, but there are still a good number who want or need more.
When you design a game with stats and grinding as the key to keeping players going, that is when developers get locked into needing new content to keep the players interested. Many single player games have a fairly large world, but because everything is STATIC, and does not really change, other than introducing new NPCs or doing the occasional update, you end up with a pretty boring game WORLD, where expanding on the world is the source of keeping things interesting.
If the game world were more dynamic, with a true economy and world that evolves over time, where NPC thieves look around the game world for things to steal, or just to survive, and where all NPCs actually live their lives, with or without player involvement, THEN you get a more interesting environment. Humans that are monitoring the world so that players can't "game the system" would of course be needed, but AI needs to become the center of a solid MMO, and letting the world evolve.
If you play a character, and you travel to a town, every NPC would have a history and story that has evolved from interaction with other NPCs as well as interaction with the players. Once you get THAT sort of situation down, the game world itself provides the changes to content, and developers can focus on larger events, such as earthquakes, floods, or other natural disasters. Underground cave complexes could open up to add more monsters to the world, but in general, people should find entertainment just in wandering and exploring the world, because it SHOULD be large enough where it would take players a long time just to go from one end of the world to the others.
Any new architecture is always a huge risk when it comes right down to it, and both HP and Oracle were foolish enough to buy into what Intel was selling at the time. Hell, it took a LONG time before x86-64 aka AMD64 was supported, so the difference is that people listened to Intel when Intel released a bad product while they pretty much ignored AMD when it released a great product. And of course, both HP and Oracle didn't have people who remembered the failed attempts of the Pentium Pro, which was also a huge failure and didn't sell.
Basically, Intel can't be trusted when it comes to a whole new architecture, because it just won't sell without any really significant advantages. The only new architecture that WOULD take off would be a new design that is aimed at the millions upon millions of CONSUMERS, and that is why ARM has been doing well. The days when "start with the stuff only a huge corporation would want and then let it trickle down" would work have been over since 1985. Microchannel failed, which was the last time IBM tried to make a major change in the PC industry, so is it any wonder that you really need something REALLY different and better?
Well, now that Steve Jobs has moved on to giving oral sex to the execs at Verizon as well as AT&T, AT&T people don't seem quite as fixated on the iPhone. The Pre 3 SHOULD do well as long as there is some solid advertising. Hell, the Blackberry Torch had more advertising behind it than the Pre Plus, and the Pre Plus WAS competitive compared to the iPhone 3GS at the time it was released.
How about the Palm/WebOS based phones? Silent launches, put in display cases with the keyboard slider closed and the phone left off, sales people who had no clue....both Verizon and AT&T could have sold quite a few Palm Pre Plus phones(which are and were vastly improved over the original Palm Pre). Manufacturers can NOT count on the carriers to actually SELL phones, unless they are a flagship device that is exclusive to that carrier. Now, a big source of the problem is the way both Verizon and AT&T obsess about a single device, and everything else means nothing. For Verizon, the Droid branded devices are the only ones that Verizon sales reps would even encourage people to buy, and AT&T was so busy getting blown by Steve Jobs that you couldn't find an AT&T employee who cared about anything besides an iPhone.
Things have changed a LITTLE, but it really feels like the only way to get Verizon or AT&T sales people to sell a phone is to put huge incentives in place for the individual employees.
That is simple, stop trying to save the starving people of other nations that can't possibly hope to sustain their CURRENT populations, and they will either survive as their population goes down, or they will die off and we won't be worried about people starving in those nations. If a nation has nothing to trade for the help it needs, then why TRY to sustain the people there? Obviously, responding to things like earthquakes and volcanoes is an area where help makes sense, but for too long, we have watched governments that already run at a deficit spend money that they don't have.
College is something that most consider is required to get a good job, and that has been the case since the 1980s, perhaps even late 1970s. The problem is that a high school education alone is not enough to get the education needed for many jobs, so college is NEEDED. Most geeks DO hold to the philosophy that you do what you have to do to get the knowledge you need, and being surrounded by others who are in the science and technical professions is also important to that desire for knowledge, so college fits that too.
Now, there is one vital part that you CAN get from a college education when it comes to programming, and that is the idea that programming is half about getting the program working, and the other half is to have elegant code. This is something that is lost on many programmers today, but it is true that efficient code is something that not enough programmers strive to produce. Get the job done, brute force is fine, even when a more elegant solution would get the job done faster seems to be the way many applications are written, and from my own background, that is the WRONG approach. Getting the job done is just half of the job.
The other thing to remember is that many successful PEOPLE have dropped out of college to start their business. They did get at least SOME of the college education, but the academic life does not fit those who in general are looking for the BEST ways to do things when school administrators generally are more interested in how things appear to be, and those who don't look and act the part just are not seen as acceptable.
Didn't Apple already start that by not allowing adult content in the app store, and by making it clear that they will not allow certain types of applications to be installed on an iOS device without the user jailbreaking it first?
This is the reason why the "lets install every application and utility that any user MAY want" by default is the worst thing for computer security. Linux, MacOS X, or Windows at their cores are fairly solid at this point, but it is all of the other garbage that also comes with that core that causes the security problems. Linux with a MINIMAL install that does not install any server software will be the most secure, because you don't have as many attack vectors. Microsoft Windows and MacOS X both give virtually no choice to the user during the install(no advanced install to allow a user to NOT install unwanted stuff), so if you want to trim down the OS, you have to do it after the fact.
There are many who will never want to share files or anything else with other computers on a home network, yet there is no easy way to NOT install that functionality, and it gets turned on by default. Where's the approach of "Ask the user if they want to share their files" and then install/enable that functionality? Why not give more control over what gets enabled/disabled without manually turning obscure services on/off?
That is a foolish way to look at it, since there are so many layers between the kernel and the user at this point. You can take a great foundation and put something with a poor structure on top of it, or you can work around a weak foundation with a lot of engineering on top to avoid problems. MacOS X has been proven to have a lot of weaknesses, and while the CORE of the OS may be good, there are many flaws on top that can be infected or exploited. Only an idiot would assume that they are safe with MacOS right now since Apple takes years to fix any vulnerability that is found.
Much of this depends on the distribution and how many packages come properly configured out of the box vs. just installing a package with a poor or incomplete configuration. If your default install installs a web server when you are not planning on actually using the web server, that opens the door to a LOT of potential security problems. As with everything else, running more than you want to run is the bad thing, and is the biggest source of security problems.
Linux, BSD, or any other UNIX or UNIX-like OS can be more secure, or it can leave the doors wide open for someone to break in. How many distributions are there again, and are they all equally secure out of the box?
In this day and age, why should we be worried about providing Internet access to EVERYONE? If our neighbors were actually giving back and helping society, that would be one thing, but in a world where EVERYONE is only looking to take as much as they can while giving back as little as they can, it makes NO sense to worry about making WiFi available to EVERYONE. As I said, I am all for helping your neighbors when they in turn help you back, but these days, I don't see acts of kindness, and helping others EVER result in any real benefit, unless you get a tax deduction from it. In many cases, your neighbors make just as much if not more than you do, so why should YOU pay for Internet access when you get zero in return? Why should someone with a laptop just get free Internet access when they don't do ANYTHING that will ever benefit you, even in a long and roundabout way?
Those who have the least tend to want to see EVERYTHING be free and open, while those who have to work for a living and struggle to pay their bills tend to expect that if they are having financial difficulties, then why give ANYTHING away for free when no one else is even helping them in any way, shape, or form? It is like the classic song, "Signs". When you have nothing, and have never had to work or take responsibility for PAYING to maintain something you own, you want EVERYTHING to be free and open from rules or cost, but the moment you learn the pain of paying bills, you have a lot more respect for others who have to pay their own bills and have responsibilities.
When others start helping make life easier for ME, then I will be more inclined to make life for others, but until that happens, the government doesn't make life easier, and all the millions of illegal immigrants don't make life easier(or even learn the language of the land they have moved to) , then why should I turn around and make life easier for THEM? Let the wealthy start the trend since they have DISPOSABLE income.
People would not want to have a huge array of solar panels near them, but having solar panels on the roof is fine. Picture a quarter acre worth of solar panels taking up space next door to you to provide power to your neighbor....doesn't seem very attractive, so it lowers the surrounding property values. If your neighbor has solar panels on the roof, that won't generate that negative reaction.
Is 3D in general what you don't like, or just the generally poor 3D implementation? If Thor was done with amazing 3D where everything had a nice depth to it, without gimmicks that had isolated objects popping off the screen, would you be saying the same thing?
This is an implementation issue rather than a "bad idea" issue. If you are at home, you have a 2D TV, or have it set to 2D, and your problem would be solved. The technology to display 3D is what needs to be developed, rather than the problem being 3D itself. The early implementations of color were HORRIBLE, and have you ever seen some of the early attempts to add color to black and white films?!?
Now, going back to those previous advances, color blind people didn't like the move to color. People with hearing problems did not get the full effect of stereo and surround sound. Single-eye blind people will still see a 3D film in 2D since, as I said, the depth of field is there in the filming, but if done properly, will not be screwed up by the "objects passing through the screen". I don't care if I have to wear glasses for the 3D effect, and if you don't want to, you can watch it in a different theater that is only 2D, it's no big deal.
You assume that long-term, that all of the issues are going to remain, in the same way many early computer programs for the PC ASSUMED your computer was going to be running a 4.77MHz, so had problems on faster computers. Never assume that things will not improve over time when it comes to this sort of thing. Blame poor implementation, not a good idea that is flawed by poor implementation.
When TV(broadcast/cable) does not offer much if any 3D content, and the number of 3D BluRay titles is also fairly low, there will be very little desire to buy special 3D components. Flat panel/LED/LCD/Plasma TVs make sense, and you DO see these selling for those who can afford them, and normal BluRay players are also selling at an acceptable rate based on the number of HD compatible TVs out there. It really comes down to the amount of content available that takes advantage of the technology.
Do you remember laser disc? There was a fairly low number of movies available, so it made it very difficult for many people to justify the purchase, and as a result, the technology died. DVD was much better from the start when it came to what was available, and the cost of players was also lower, even for early adopters, so it did well. BluRay on the other hand, requires a HD display, and since not everyone has HD at this point, you don't see the WalMart shoppers running out and buying them. 3D continues, where many/most people have not caught up to the LAST generation yet, and that will keep people from spending the extra money.
If you look back at movies and TV, you see this same complaint against any new advance, that the improvements are useless. Silent film to "talkies" was a clear advance, and I am sure that there were SOME complaints from those who didn't care for it. When color came out, some saw it as useless and then there were more complaints. Color TV was the same way, an added expense that did not add to the quality of the movie or show in the eyes of some. When stereo first came out, again, some complained and they didn't hear how it improved things, or surround sound. All of these things added to the overall experience of going to the movies or watching TV/movies at home, even if not everyone notices or cares about the improvements that have been added.
I remember the first time I watched Star Trek: The Next Generation in stereo, there was a background ship hum that on older "mono" TVs just did not have that added to the experience of watching it. It may not have been amazing by modern standards, but it was cool that it was an obvious improvement. For surround, watch most action movies with a decent surround sound system, and you can hear bullets flying AROUND you, some behind, some moving from behind and then to the front. This is the sort of thing that, as I said, enhances the experience, yet would not be "required" for the movie or show to be entertaining.
So, 3D. For the most part, most 3D is very poorly implemented, with a few objects that pop out of the screen at the viewer, and does NOT enhance the viewing experience as a whole. The 3D is really just an extra "layer" that is added, and in these cases, those shooting down 3D are correct, it is NOT worth extra money in these cases. Now, Avatar is an example of 3D done fairly well, because there is a true "depth" throughout the movie, at least that was my impression when I saw it in IMAX. It wasn't about objects popping off the screen, it was about the entire movie feeling like there was more depth to EVERYTHING. This is where people want to see 3D go, where 3D isn't just for "cute" effects, but enhances how things look overall. If the home 3D experience is anything like what they did with Avatar on IMAX, then 3D is a very good addition.
All special effects have always had their origins start in a way that it really WAS just a gimmick, and often replaced good acting or story, but as time has gone on, special effects have improved to the point where even some modern commercials would awe someone from the 1970s. In time, there will be no extra expense for filming in 3D, and the costs will drop. As I said, the real key is if 3D focuses on adding that depth of field to all scenes, rather than being focused on a few objects that just pop off the screen but otherwise leaves the movie as a 2D film. Only time will tell if 3D matures into a true way to enhance the movie-going experience.
Not everyone has a flat panel/HD capable TV, so it makes sense that for those who don't have a flat panel, a normal DVD player is already better than the average TV. As more and more people replace their old CRT based TV with a flat panel, there will be a corresponding replacement of DVD players as well. If HDMI cables were also provided, the reduction in cables to connect things together would also encourage many people to make the switch.
Costs on flat panel displays have been dropping, so there will be a time in the next few years where people will FINALLY stop buying those old TVs, and Blu-Ray will at that point make a LOT more sense. $50 Blue-Ray players would also help with the adoption of the technology.
The problem with Word and Excel formats is that the results you get will often change from computer to computer, or version to version. There are places where MS Word 2010 will render documents slightly differently than Word 2007, or 2003. There are clearly times when all you care about is editing and content, but when you want to push out something that SHOULD be presented the EXACT same way, no matter what the platform is, the Microsoft formats do not do the job.
Tax forms, or the official document manuals(that are no longer printed and included with almost all products) should always be presented to users the way they are intended to be, and that is where PDF comes in. I do feel that most people do NOT need the new features in the latest PDF formats, so a locked down "minimal" PDF just for documentation, without all this active content stuff could be built in and could be VERY fast if done correctly.
This is where you are mixing up the facts and the discussions. The creation of Israel in the first place is not something that should be debated at this point, it was done long enough ago that arguing the existence of Israel is like debating about if the Civil War was justified. Looking at new events as they happen and then discussing who is right or wrong about their actions IS something to be debated.
So, let's look at some of the more recent activities. Israel has made a number of gestures to try to make peace with the Palestinians, and the result was having rockets fired from Palestine into Israel, over and over and over again. Now, if your neighbor kept shooting at your house every now and then, not doing any MAJOR damage, but being a threat, how long would YOU take it before you did something serious to stop it? Would you just buy a gun, or would you go for a rocket launcher and knock down the house next door?
You can also argue that LTE as a fundamental technology is a fourth generation protocol, even if the initial implementation isn't any faster than the latest 3G-based implementations. In time, it will be easier to evolve LTE to provide faster speeds than the 3G protocols.
So you don't think Verizon is a large enough competitor to keep AT&T from being considered a monopoly, or near-monopoly?
So not ALLOWING Flash, even when Adobe does all the work is being good? How about FORCING publishers to sell their content at a 30 percent loss on the App Store, that is being good?