True, but functionally I doubt we'll ever see a conflict where Norway and the US are at war with someone and the EU is not, so it will be part of the defense this side of the Atlantic. I wouldn't exactly call it freeloading on the EU either, through EEC we pay just as much as if we were a member.
Currencies have to exist inside of a strong ecosystem that encourages their trading rather than hoarding.
Hyperinflation encourages trading a lot, spend right now before it's worthless. Currencies actually for the most part target an equivalence between having cash or goods. To do that the currency have to expand with the economy, no more (causing hyperinflation) and no less (causing deflation). Okay so there's a little bit of oil in the machinery there to make you trade, but the net loss if you put the money in government bonds and gain interest is small.
It will not. Ppl as a whole, do what brings them pleasure. When you do not have a job or money, then you spend your time focused on roughly one thing: sex. Now, when nations are controlled by roman catholics, islam, mormons, etc, or you have idiots like reagan and W that say no money to BC, well, you end up with a high birth rate.
Though only a few would seriously have the ten kids they'd have if they just kept fucking and fucking with no birth control. So in practice the disconnect between having sex and having kids has already happened. The only battleground is where this not-for-reproduction sex happens. Most that practically deal with teenagers have quietly added "but if you do anyway use protection so you don't get pregnant or catch an STD" in additon to the puritan bullshit.
I then look around and realize that they have entire train coming out here on a Saturday afternoon to pick up four people.
Well, it depends on whether you want people to use cars less or not have one at all. After all, there's a lot of sunk costs just having a car for weekends if you go by public service on week days. I've taken a lot of bus and tram lines that in isolation are probably a loss. But if those lines weren't going, I'd cancel my whole subscription and drive instead.
Trains are often mismanaged though, here it's not price as much as reliability. By skimping on the rail maintenance and trains not being very good at passing each other or take detours when it stops everything stops. One bus breaking down doesn't create chaos, one train does.
Maybe that explains why so many Europeans feel the EU is an evil institute.
Sure, there are disagreements and minor political conflicts from time to time, just as there are elsewhere, but to imply that all Europeans think the EU is evil is going just a tad too far.
Where exactly did he go from many to all? That was your hyperbole. Anyway, EU citizens are torn between two opposing issues. On the one hand they're afraid that EU lacks direct democratic influence, that government-appointed politicians and lobbyists make directives while the public first is called to outrage when the actual law is implemented in the individual countries and it for the most part is too late to change. It's gotten a little better with the EU parliament changes but even so they've often been the voice of reason against an unreasonable Council that isn't directly elected.
On the other hand, many people are afraid of an US of E where the nations and national interests are overrun by Brussels. The relation between "German" and "European" is quite different than between "Californian" and "American" (though both have stolen a continent's name). You can see this now with the suggested soltions to the debt crisis, some want Greece to abandon the Euro while others think now's the time to make economic policy on the EU level, not national governments. Neither solution is without some fairly large downsides.
Here in Norway we're almost 5 million people and our largest military threat - despite it being post-Cold War is Russia, which is a huge country who could field more soldiers than we have people. If NATO won't help we're screwed anyway and if NATO comes people expect the cavalry to come charging to our rescue anyway. But is the US interested in protecting people that can't be bothered to have a decent defense of their own? If everybody is betting on NATO to aid them, who'll be the ones delivering all the aid? Would you seriously accept the logic on anything that "They have tanks, so we don't have to" "They have carriers, so we don't have to" "They have submarines, so we don't have to". No, Europe should have its Galileo because it's ours even though the US has theirs and we're allies. An alliance should come on top of your own defense, not instead of it.
I'd say by far the biggest complaint about Firefox is memory leaks, not memory use. To use a car analogy it's the difference between a car with poor MPG and a car with an oil leak that'll runs worse and worse and will grind to a halt unless you stop every few miles to refill it. Or leave it in the parking lot a few days and it's dead when you try driving it again. Choice is not bad. Choice that cripples the basic functionality of the product is bad.
While in theory (chuckle) science leaves the door open, at some point the practical scientist will just conclude the evidence of evolution is overwhelming and the creationist will continue to ramble forever because he's on a religious agenda. While there's natural variations in temperature it is starting to get extremely unlikely that there aren't man made effects at play, there's so much vested interest here its starting to look like the tobacco industry's research into the health effects of smoking.
I'd like a source for that, a little over 2 billion people have computers and Linux browser market share has been steadily under 1% so about 20 million. Unless you're counting all other uses of Linux on servers, routers, set top boxes and whatnot but I doubt those users would define themselves as Linux users.
Your post would make sense if all of this was a mandatory block in every category for everybody under 18. They'll be categorizing a lot that maybe parents don't want kids under 12 to see, but they wouldn't dream of blocking for a late teen. The alleged "now you've turned 18, so we're throwing you from a padded room to a cesspool of filth" doesn't really reflect reality.
Step 2: Accept that legalese exists for the same reason software developers don't program in English. It is hard to precisely define or decipher the contents of a contract, you will need to learn a special vocabulary.
Think, for example, of the recent show Lost where the fans that the network really depended on were fairly casual TV viewers (and thus the increasing emphasis on the love triangle over more substantial plot elements), not the comparatively smaller group of people who discussed the show's mythology on internet fora and spent every waking hour trying to solve its mysteries.
I understand going for the biggest possible market, but when every series is going for the same thing and all the rest just becomes an angle to tell another love story it gets way overdone. If you just can't have a show that's for the fans of that genre without trying to making another pass at turning it into a romance then you have to force it in there somewhere. I guess sometimes you can do it tastefully, other times not so much.
To take one example, read the Lord of the Rings. After you've read it, ask yourself how large a part of the story is Aragon and Arwen's love story of the book. Yes, I know it's a little bit in the appendix but seriously, in the movies it's the second main plot with Romeo & Juliet'ish proportions, parallel to the LotR plot. It's obviously well done, but that's the way it has to be these days. Unless it's a children's movie (and even then there's Wall-E) there absolutely must be some kind of romantic entanglement.
David Brin theorizes that we've already doubled our lifespan, from 30-45 or so, pre-civilzation, to the 70-90 that most western countries now have.
In ancient Rome the average life expectancy was 28 years, so yes we've doubled or more like tripled the average life expectancy. That's not a theory it's well documented. But they had 90 year olds like we have 110 year olds, that has changed maybe 20% in 2500 years. Most people now live to get old, but the old haven't gotten that much older.
But how old they look doesn't necessarily mean something for their aging, we're talking about two different things that might be related but often not. Lots of tanning ages the skin and gives you more wrinkles and maybe an increased rate of skin cancer. But if we're estimating the risk of dying of a heart failure I'd say they're of the same age even if one looks like an old hag and the other still silky smooth. How attracted you may be to them is another matter.
There's also no necessary symmetry, I can make the lifetime of my HDDs shorter by banging the case. But I can't make it longer, because I'm already not doing that. Just because there's a way to make your life 20 years shorter by living unhealthy, doesn't mean there's a way to make it 20 years longer by living ultra super duper healthy. Nor have the longest living been pristine models of clean life style, the record holding 122 year old smoked cigarettes for 96 years. Some just have it and others don't.
Wouldn't that be an implied part of making us live to 150? I looked up the stats for the recent story on the 115 year old. Here in Norway a male who was 80 in 1906-1910 could expect to live 5.90 years on average, a hundred years later 7.58 years. The same figures for women are 6.30 to 9.36 years. So the last 100 years has only stretched the maximum life span by 2-3 years, while the average lifespan has gone up 26 years.While the accounts of people living past 100 are questionable, we have quite a few recorded cases of ancient Greeks living over 90 years.
The difference between then and now is that we've largely eliminated infant mortality, women dying in child labor and lots of other causes that dragged the average way down, lots of deaths from poor hygiene and so on but we've not raised the cap much at all. Unless we find a way to truly slow aging so you're like a 30yo @ 60, 50yo @ 100 and 75yo @ 150, I doubt we'll ever reach 150. I doubt you can first let the body get frail and old, then keep that frail and old body alive that much longer. If you could almost "freeze" it like that, why not do that when we're in our prime?
Diet is overwhelmingly why we live longer and healthier than our dark-ages counterparts. The idea that diet is unimportant is massively wrong, and based in overwhelming ignorance. If you want an example canonical case, look up scurvy, and just how many people were horribly afflicted by it
Scurvy was a huge problem to long-distance sailing and marching armies, but not your average farmer or fisherman. Here in Norway a male who was 80 in 1906-1910 could expect to live 5.90 years on average, a hundred years later 7.58 years. The same figures for women are 6.30 to 9.36 years. So the last 100 years has only stretched the maximum life span by 2-3 years, while the average lifespan has gone up 26 years. That's for the most part hygiene and medicine keeping people alive. While the accounts of people living past 100 are questionable, we have quite a few recorded cases of ancient Greeks living over 90 years. What dragged the numbers down was infant mortality, men dying at a tip of the blade and women dying in child labor, infected wounds and disease. Apart from the times there was famine, the diet was usually not the problem.
Re:I haven't read the article, but hear me out her
on
Who Killed Videogames?
·
· Score: 1
I liked achievements to begin with, they gave you a reason to do more than just min-maxing and try out different strategies. But there's become so many of them it's like having banner, interstitial, pop-up, pop-under and ajax ads all at once. I'm completely desensitized to them now because there's hundreds of them and I get awarded one every two minutes. It reminds me of the time when banner ads were supposed to be epilepsy inducing flashing red and yellow. I just hope it gets dialed back to being, well, achievements.
I know you're a troll, but let's do a simple takedown of some of your "points" shall we?
Trolls exist to waste other people's time, it's probably copy-pasta and by taking the time you've lost. That you know just makes you look stupid, it's like knowing it's a trap but walking right into it anyway. The only way to win is not to play.
Better than a naive hope, I'd say. Maybe you can tweak the percentages here and there but with all the diets and behavioral regimes people have tried we'd know if anything made you almost impervious to disease. Of course it helps to be generally fit but for the most part we need treatments, not just regular exercise and eating our vegetables. I have a friend who was diagnosed with cancer at age 16, never drunk, never smoked, excellent health. He needed a treatment for cancer, not just generally good advice. I think it'll be the same with Alzheimer, a few things may help but it's not nearly a replacement for a true treatment or cure.
Certainly not focusing for some time now, so eventually a few things are left behind. Businesses tend to look at it more rationally, what productivity increases do we get - which translates fairly directly to dollars, compared to the costs. Consumers generally don't have any tangible productivity or revenue, it's more a matter of disposable income and what they like. It's like trying to compare the army and a regular person buying a sweater. The army will look at technical things like thermal properties, durability, washing instructions and other technical things, what brand and fashion statement you make is utterly irrelevant. Then you get into a fairly low-margin business of who can provide a piece of clothing that satisfy those requirements, and Apple doesn't want to be there. The only reason they've stayed with graphics professionals is that many of those have had very high hardware and software budgets, just like there were some ridiculously expensive SGI workstations for engineers. Apple wants to sell to the people who'll pick a $699 iPhone over a $399 Android because they want an iPhone. Not because of an rational feature-by-feature comparison, but because they have a want and the money to buy what they want. The margins are much, much nicer that way.
Don't want >1080p now, no problem, but shoot it on a 1080p camera now and you're screwed later. Shoot it on 35mm and your good for 2K later.
Uh, since 4k and 2k refer to the horizontal resolution 1920x1080 is already ~2k. A direct scan of a 35mm film negative will have a bit more detail than that, but plenty film grain too so in practice they're pretty close as we've seen on many 35mm to BluRay transfers. Note that with analog processing the actual resolution in a cinema was typically less than 1080p so it's not like it was better in the "good old days". Digital 4k all the way from the camera to a 4k projector is likely to look better than 35mm and more like something shot on 70mm, which was fairly exotic. Relatively little was shot on it then and even less now, I'd wager.
As for 4k, yes it's expensive but not like Hollywood-expensive anymore. Compared to paying Will Smith $20,000,000 to star in your movie renting a Red camera or a Cinealta F65 is peanuts. Then again, unless you're going to be in 4k digital projection cinemas then it's not going to help you today, only when what comes after BluRay comes out. That could take a very long while. Not to mention I wouldn't bet on the tool chain being ready for it either, if only the raw footage is 4k then it'll be a huge job to upgrade it. We saw that with many things made for TV, even if it was shot on 35mm film all the rest was done in SD and would have to be redone.
Cutting the size and weight of the camera down by 70-90% gives you flexibility.
I think you're exaggerating a bit how much the film is of the camera, there are some pretty compact 35mm video cameras and the professional ones are still rather big and heavy. Yes, my little prosumer camera also does 1080p now and that couldn't be done with film, but I doubt anyone's going to make a serious production on it.
For a "news for nerds" site, we sure seem to have a lot of technophobes.
If both have knives, it's pretty hard to get accidentally stabbed. If both have guns, the risk of a stray bullet is considerable. If both have grenades, the blast can easily kill you. If both have nukes, you better make your Hail Mary quick.
I think that most people here realize technology is true neutral. It's not automatically going to be so that the more advanced we are, the more civilized and peaceful we are. It's just a bigger gun that can be used for good and evil. You can for example see this is war, where before you had lines of battle. Now in modern warfare the fighting is everywhere with death raining down from the skies. In fact, we use huge sums on smart weapons to try not killing indiscriminately but it doesn't make up for the sheer force of them. The ratio of civilians to military killed has only gone up. If ever we start WWIII and the nukes start flying it'll be off the charts. Or if we replayed WWII today I'm pretty sure Hitler would go for a bioweapon to match his ideas of racial superiority and make a virus to kill everyone that didn't have the right Aryan markers. Sometimes I'm very happy that people don't have the technology.
It great news because things need to continue to get much worse before people will finally get off there collective asses to do something about it. You can already see more and more common folks starting to make noise.
Judging from every third world country that's suffering from really massive and direct corruption, I don't think so. It's a catch 22 where people support the system because it works and the system works because people support it. If the people at the top are just lining their own pockets then that'll spread downwards and once the system becomes so dirty that corruption is the norm rather than the exception then it's extremely hard to scourge. Everybody is looking to screw the system because the system is obviously screwed by everybody else, the black economy is rampant and the clean people held for fools or even eliminated if they get bothersome. It's like making a shirt extremely dirty to force a washing, only to find the stains don't go out. Once you're there it's extremely hard to get back to civilized society, it's a lot of the reason why the third world stays the third world.
Yep, you could tell from the laptop HDDs that bigger 3.5" HDDs were possible, because they kept getting denser while desktop HDDs were stuck at 2TB. Nobody really wanted to be the first one out to solve all the issues and educate the market.
Slashdot Mirror
True, but functionally I doubt we'll ever see a conflict where Norway and the US are at war with someone and the EU is not, so it will be part of the defense this side of the Atlantic. I wouldn't exactly call it freeloading on the EU either, through EEC we pay just as much as if we were a member.
Currencies have to exist inside of a strong ecosystem that encourages their trading rather than hoarding.
Hyperinflation encourages trading a lot, spend right now before it's worthless. Currencies actually for the most part target an equivalence between having cash or goods. To do that the currency have to expand with the economy, no more (causing hyperinflation) and no less (causing deflation). Okay so there's a little bit of oil in the machinery there to make you trade, but the net loss if you put the money in government bonds and gain interest is small.
It will not. Ppl as a whole, do what brings them pleasure. When you do not have a job or money, then you spend your time focused on roughly one thing: sex. Now, when nations are controlled by roman catholics, islam, mormons, etc, or you have idiots like reagan and W that say no money to BC, well, you end up with a high birth rate.
Though only a few would seriously have the ten kids they'd have if they just kept fucking and fucking with no birth control. So in practice the disconnect between having sex and having kids has already happened. The only battleground is where this not-for-reproduction sex happens. Most that practically deal with teenagers have quietly added "but if you do anyway use protection so you don't get pregnant or catch an STD" in additon to the puritan bullshit.
I then look around and realize that they have entire train coming out here on a Saturday afternoon to pick up four people.
Well, it depends on whether you want people to use cars less or not have one at all. After all, there's a lot of sunk costs just having a car for weekends if you go by public service on week days. I've taken a lot of bus and tram lines that in isolation are probably a loss. But if those lines weren't going, I'd cancel my whole subscription and drive instead.
Trains are often mismanaged though, here it's not price as much as reliability. By skimping on the rail maintenance and trains not being very good at passing each other or take detours when it stops everything stops. One bus breaking down doesn't create chaos, one train does.
Maybe that explains why so many Europeans feel the EU is an evil institute.
Sure, there are disagreements and minor political conflicts from time to time, just as there are elsewhere, but to imply that all Europeans think the EU is evil is going just a tad too far.
Where exactly did he go from many to all? That was your hyperbole. Anyway, EU citizens are torn between two opposing issues. On the one hand they're afraid that EU lacks direct democratic influence, that government-appointed politicians and lobbyists make directives while the public first is called to outrage when the actual law is implemented in the individual countries and it for the most part is too late to change. It's gotten a little better with the EU parliament changes but even so they've often been the voice of reason against an unreasonable Council that isn't directly elected.
On the other hand, many people are afraid of an US of E where the nations and national interests are overrun by Brussels. The relation between "German" and "European" is quite different than between "Californian" and "American" (though both have stolen a continent's name). You can see this now with the suggested soltions to the debt crisis, some want Greece to abandon the Euro while others think now's the time to make economic policy on the EU level, not national governments. Neither solution is without some fairly large downsides.
Here in Norway we're almost 5 million people and our largest military threat - despite it being post-Cold War is Russia, which is a huge country who could field more soldiers than we have people. If NATO won't help we're screwed anyway and if NATO comes people expect the cavalry to come charging to our rescue anyway. But is the US interested in protecting people that can't be bothered to have a decent defense of their own? If everybody is betting on NATO to aid them, who'll be the ones delivering all the aid? Would you seriously accept the logic on anything that "They have tanks, so we don't have to" "They have carriers, so we don't have to" "They have submarines, so we don't have to". No, Europe should have its Galileo because it's ours even though the US has theirs and we're allies. An alliance should come on top of your own defense, not instead of it.
I'd say by far the biggest complaint about Firefox is memory leaks, not memory use. To use a car analogy it's the difference between a car with poor MPG and a car with an oil leak that'll runs worse and worse and will grind to a halt unless you stop every few miles to refill it. Or leave it in the parking lot a few days and it's dead when you try driving it again. Choice is not bad. Choice that cripples the basic functionality of the product is bad.
While in theory (chuckle) science leaves the door open, at some point the practical scientist will just conclude the evidence of evolution is overwhelming and the creationist will continue to ramble forever because he's on a religious agenda. While there's natural variations in temperature it is starting to get extremely unlikely that there aren't man made effects at play, there's so much vested interest here its starting to look like the tobacco industry's research into the health effects of smoking.
I'd like a source for that, a little over 2 billion people have computers and Linux browser market share has been steadily under 1% so about 20 million. Unless you're counting all other uses of Linux on servers, routers, set top boxes and whatnot but I doubt those users would define themselves as Linux users.
Your post would make sense if all of this was a mandatory block in every category for everybody under 18. They'll be categorizing a lot that maybe parents don't want kids under 12 to see, but they wouldn't dream of blocking for a late teen. The alleged "now you've turned 18, so we're throwing you from a padded room to a cesspool of filth" doesn't really reflect reality.
Step 2: Accept that legalese exists for the same reason software developers don't program in English. It is hard to precisely define or decipher the contents of a contract, you will need to learn a special vocabulary.
Think, for example, of the recent show Lost where the fans that the network really depended on were fairly casual TV viewers (and thus the increasing emphasis on the love triangle over more substantial plot elements), not the comparatively smaller group of people who discussed the show's mythology on internet fora and spent every waking hour trying to solve its mysteries.
I understand going for the biggest possible market, but when every series is going for the same thing and all the rest just becomes an angle to tell another love story it gets way overdone. If you just can't have a show that's for the fans of that genre without trying to making another pass at turning it into a romance then you have to force it in there somewhere. I guess sometimes you can do it tastefully, other times not so much.
To take one example, read the Lord of the Rings. After you've read it, ask yourself how large a part of the story is Aragon and Arwen's love story of the book. Yes, I know it's a little bit in the appendix but seriously, in the movies it's the second main plot with Romeo & Juliet'ish proportions, parallel to the LotR plot. It's obviously well done, but that's the way it has to be these days. Unless it's a children's movie (and even then there's Wall-E) there absolutely must be some kind of romantic entanglement.
David Brin theorizes that we've already doubled our lifespan, from 30-45 or so, pre-civilzation, to the 70-90 that most western countries now have.
In ancient Rome the average life expectancy was 28 years, so yes we've doubled or more like tripled the average life expectancy. That's not a theory it's well documented. But they had 90 year olds like we have 110 year olds, that has changed maybe 20% in 2500 years. Most people now live to get old, but the old haven't gotten that much older.
But how old they look doesn't necessarily mean something for their aging, we're talking about two different things that might be related but often not. Lots of tanning ages the skin and gives you more wrinkles and maybe an increased rate of skin cancer. But if we're estimating the risk of dying of a heart failure I'd say they're of the same age even if one looks like an old hag and the other still silky smooth. How attracted you may be to them is another matter.
There's also no necessary symmetry, I can make the lifetime of my HDDs shorter by banging the case. But I can't make it longer, because I'm already not doing that. Just because there's a way to make your life 20 years shorter by living unhealthy, doesn't mean there's a way to make it 20 years longer by living ultra super duper healthy. Nor have the longest living been pristine models of clean life style, the record holding 122 year old smoked cigarettes for 96 years. Some just have it and others don't.
Wouldn't that be an implied part of making us live to 150? I looked up the stats for the recent story on the 115 year old. Here in Norway a male who was 80 in 1906-1910 could expect to live 5.90 years on average, a hundred years later 7.58 years. The same figures for women are 6.30 to 9.36 years. So the last 100 years has only stretched the maximum life span by 2-3 years, while the average lifespan has gone up 26 years.While the accounts of people living past 100 are questionable, we have quite a few recorded cases of ancient Greeks living over 90 years.
The difference between then and now is that we've largely eliminated infant mortality, women dying in child labor and lots of other causes that dragged the average way down, lots of deaths from poor hygiene and so on but we've not raised the cap much at all. Unless we find a way to truly slow aging so you're like a 30yo @ 60, 50yo @ 100 and 75yo @ 150, I doubt we'll ever reach 150. I doubt you can first let the body get frail and old, then keep that frail and old body alive that much longer. If you could almost "freeze" it like that, why not do that when we're in our prime?
Diet is overwhelmingly why we live longer and healthier than our dark-ages counterparts. The idea that diet is unimportant is massively wrong, and based in overwhelming ignorance. If you want an example canonical case, look up scurvy, and just how many people were horribly afflicted by it
Scurvy was a huge problem to long-distance sailing and marching armies, but not your average farmer or fisherman. Here in Norway a male who was 80 in 1906-1910 could expect to live 5.90 years on average, a hundred years later 7.58 years. The same figures for women are 6.30 to 9.36 years. So the last 100 years has only stretched the maximum life span by 2-3 years, while the average lifespan has gone up 26 years. That's for the most part hygiene and medicine keeping people alive. While the accounts of people living past 100 are questionable, we have quite a few recorded cases of ancient Greeks living over 90 years. What dragged the numbers down was infant mortality, men dying at a tip of the blade and women dying in child labor, infected wounds and disease. Apart from the times there was famine, the diet was usually not the problem.
I liked achievements to begin with, they gave you a reason to do more than just min-maxing and try out different strategies. But there's become so many of them it's like having banner, interstitial, pop-up, pop-under and ajax ads all at once. I'm completely desensitized to them now because there's hundreds of them and I get awarded one every two minutes. It reminds me of the time when banner ads were supposed to be epilepsy inducing flashing red and yellow. I just hope it gets dialed back to being, well, achievements.
I know you're a troll, but let's do a simple takedown of some of your "points" shall we?
Trolls exist to waste other people's time, it's probably copy-pasta and by taking the time you've lost. That you know just makes you look stupid, it's like knowing it's a trap but walking right into it anyway. The only way to win is not to play.
Better than a naive hope, I'd say. Maybe you can tweak the percentages here and there but with all the diets and behavioral regimes people have tried we'd know if anything made you almost impervious to disease. Of course it helps to be generally fit but for the most part we need treatments, not just regular exercise and eating our vegetables. I have a friend who was diagnosed with cancer at age 16, never drunk, never smoked, excellent health. He needed a treatment for cancer, not just generally good advice. I think it'll be the same with Alzheimer, a few things may help but it's not nearly a replacement for a true treatment or cure.
Certainly not focusing for some time now, so eventually a few things are left behind. Businesses tend to look at it more rationally, what productivity increases do we get - which translates fairly directly to dollars, compared to the costs. Consumers generally don't have any tangible productivity or revenue, it's more a matter of disposable income and what they like. It's like trying to compare the army and a regular person buying a sweater. The army will look at technical things like thermal properties, durability, washing instructions and other technical things, what brand and fashion statement you make is utterly irrelevant. Then you get into a fairly low-margin business of who can provide a piece of clothing that satisfy those requirements, and Apple doesn't want to be there. The only reason they've stayed with graphics professionals is that many of those have had very high hardware and software budgets, just like there were some ridiculously expensive SGI workstations for engineers. Apple wants to sell to the people who'll pick a $699 iPhone over a $399 Android because they want an iPhone. Not because of an rational feature-by-feature comparison, but because they have a want and the money to buy what they want. The margins are much, much nicer that way.
Don't want >1080p now, no problem, but shoot it on a 1080p camera now and you're screwed later. Shoot it on 35mm and your good for 2K later.
Uh, since 4k and 2k refer to the horizontal resolution 1920x1080 is already ~2k. A direct scan of a 35mm film negative will have a bit more detail than that, but plenty film grain too so in practice they're pretty close as we've seen on many 35mm to BluRay transfers. Note that with analog processing the actual resolution in a cinema was typically less than 1080p so it's not like it was better in the "good old days". Digital 4k all the way from the camera to a 4k projector is likely to look better than 35mm and more like something shot on 70mm, which was fairly exotic. Relatively little was shot on it then and even less now, I'd wager.
As for 4k, yes it's expensive but not like Hollywood-expensive anymore. Compared to paying Will Smith $20,000,000 to star in your movie renting a Red camera or a Cinealta F65 is peanuts. Then again, unless you're going to be in 4k digital projection cinemas then it's not going to help you today, only when what comes after BluRay comes out. That could take a very long while. Not to mention I wouldn't bet on the tool chain being ready for it either, if only the raw footage is 4k then it'll be a huge job to upgrade it. We saw that with many things made for TV, even if it was shot on 35mm film all the rest was done in SD and would have to be redone.
Cutting the size and weight of the camera down by 70-90% gives you flexibility.
I think you're exaggerating a bit how much the film is of the camera, there are some pretty compact 35mm video cameras and the professional ones are still rather big and heavy. Yes, my little prosumer camera also does 1080p now and that couldn't be done with film, but I doubt anyone's going to make a serious production on it.
For a "news for nerds" site, we sure seem to have a lot of technophobes.
If both have knives, it's pretty hard to get accidentally stabbed.
If both have guns, the risk of a stray bullet is considerable.
If both have grenades, the blast can easily kill you.
If both have nukes, you better make your Hail Mary quick.
I think that most people here realize technology is true neutral. It's not automatically going to be so that the more advanced we are, the more civilized and peaceful we are. It's just a bigger gun that can be used for good and evil. You can for example see this is war, where before you had lines of battle. Now in modern warfare the fighting is everywhere with death raining down from the skies. In fact, we use huge sums on smart weapons to try not killing indiscriminately but it doesn't make up for the sheer force of them. The ratio of civilians to military killed has only gone up. If ever we start WWIII and the nukes start flying it'll be off the charts. Or if we replayed WWII today I'm pretty sure Hitler would go for a bioweapon to match his ideas of racial superiority and make a virus to kill everyone that didn't have the right Aryan markers. Sometimes I'm very happy that people don't have the technology.
It great news because things need to continue to get much worse before people will finally get off there collective asses to do something about it. You can already see more and more common folks starting to make noise.
Judging from every third world country that's suffering from really massive and direct corruption, I don't think so. It's a catch 22 where people support the system because it works and the system works because people support it. If the people at the top are just lining their own pockets then that'll spread downwards and once the system becomes so dirty that corruption is the norm rather than the exception then it's extremely hard to scourge. Everybody is looking to screw the system because the system is obviously screwed by everybody else, the black economy is rampant and the clean people held for fools or even eliminated if they get bothersome. It's like making a shirt extremely dirty to force a washing, only to find the stains don't go out. Once you're there it's extremely hard to get back to civilized society, it's a lot of the reason why the third world stays the third world.
Yep, you could tell from the laptop HDDs that bigger 3.5" HDDs were possible, because they kept getting denser while desktop HDDs were stuck at 2TB. Nobody really wanted to be the first one out to solve all the issues and educate the market.