You could just get a plastic cling printed with "Opinion" and put it in the lower right corner. Or better yet, use one of the plastic clings printed with Mike or Joel and the Bots that occasionally come in MST3K DVDs. I have one on my mirror in the bathroom.
But we're talking about televisions, and the media made for televisions is made with TV/movie cameras. The big ones. Of course I'm not comparing 3D photos taken with a Nintendo 3DS (which is a pretty cool implementation for such an inexpensive piece of hardware), with IMAX 3D movies. I've seen an IMAX 3D movie in an IMAX theater, and I wasn't impressed with it above any other 3D format I've seen. It wasn't horrible, but for me the 3D effect distracted from at least as much as it enhanced the experience, and I can't see how a 3D TV would be any better.
When 3D undergoes the same revolution in quality that we saw when SD television gave way to HD, I think it will become more widely accepted and used. That said, however, 3D simply does not bring enough to the table to enhance the experience (whether at home or in the theater) compared to the improvements in sound and display technology we've seen in the past few decades. When talkies became possible, silent movies quickly disappeared except for those cases where the artists specifically chose that format for artistic reasons. Ditto color vs. black-and-white. I don't think 3D will ever become that kind of default unless radically new technological advances make it much better. Dolby is a household name because it redefined the sound experience, as is Technicolor. 3D hasn't hit that level of success yet, and I don't think it ever will.
If you like 3D, that's great. It's freely available and doesn't cost much these days. It simply doesn't interest me. But lots of technology struggled for years until just the right implementation (or price) came along. The advances we have seen in the last 20 years, if we stop to take stock of everything we take for granted, are nothing short of amazing.
I've seen a polarized light 3D IMAX movie at least once, at the Tennessee Aquarium in Chattanooga a few years ago. It was pretty cool, but it doesn't work _that_ well as far as I'm concerned. And it definitely wasn't a gimmicky production, but a nice documentary about sea life.
I suspect the "modern" attempts are doing more than just trying to create a patentable implementation and are really trying to improve the experience. I can't imagine that if it were possible to make a cheap, patent-free 3D implementation and use it to sell more sets that companies wouldn't be falling over each other to get it into consumers' hands.
In any event, I don't foresee getting 3D hardware unless it happens to come as part of something I purchase for other reasons, and I can't imagine having any desire to buy media for it beyond maybe one item to "check it out".
It's fine that you like 3D, but from my point of view, the whole argument for it fails at "When it's done well."
I've never seen 3D anything that was "done well". It's just distracting, period. When 3D technology gets to the point where the screen is essentially like looking out a window, then I would find it worth getting, and I don't think we'll be seeing anything like that for many years.
You might think differently when your sister comes to visit while your wife is away and you get accused of committing adultery.
Sure, it's easy enough to demonstrate the charge is bogus, but who's going to notice that?
Or better yet, your enemy sends strippers to your house and releases the video of them arriving (and of course leaving out the part where you chase them off).
The "I've got nothing to hide" argument doesn't carry much weight when giving people power they can easily abuse.
Just because something is overdiagnosed doesn't mean it doesn't exist. ADHD is way overdiagnosed, but it's real. I applaud your self-control and discipline. But you shouldn't think that just because you can overcome these kinds of problems that people who can't are necessarily morally flawed.
"I could care less" is usually used sarcastically, but, as we are seeing here, many people take it literally and then complain about it without thinking what the actual words mean.
cf. "could of" - Try diagramming a sentence with that construction. "of" is a verb?
Using "suppose" instead of "supposed", as in "I'm supposed to understand my language well enough to use it correctly."
Think about what the word means in the context... then you realize "suppose" doesn't make sense.
I had the unfortunate job of re-writing an Excel VBA app last year and I can say based on my experience that the Microsoft documentation for VBA (much like that for the rest of Office) range between useless and non-existent.
For the vast majority of my searches for "Excel VBA topic", a Microsoft site wouldn't even be on the first page, and perhaps not even the second.
Without forums like Stack Overflow, I would not have been able to finish the task... or it would have taken much longer. As it was, I still had to fall back to trial-and-error because VBA is, easily the buggiest, most fragile and most poorly documented development platform I've ever used in 25+ years.
Yes, but different kinds of sensory input can be utilized by the brain in amazing ways. Regardless of how the input comes in, it can be incorporated into the brain's sensory interpretation apparatus in amazing ways, and if the input resolution is high enough it could be used by the visual cortex in ways we probably can't even guess at yet.
This is not about putting eyes on your butt, but extrapolating what could be done with an alternative sensory apparatus and hacking the nervous system.
If it leads to enough understanding that we successfully regenerate damaged nerves in the human body then it could be one of the most useful pieces of science ever done. Imagine eventually being able to cure things like blindness, paralysis and disorders of the nervous system like Parkinson's!
I never used NT 3.1, but NT 3.5 was excellent, as was 4.0 if you avoided the even Service Packs (they had an alternating good/bad thing going on there too).
I loved using Windows 2000, although Explorer, which has always sucked, was particularly buggy in that release from my experience. I never thought XP was all that bad, and by the time they Service Packed it into submission, I loved it. I miss it, because I don't care what anyone says, Windows 7 performance isn't all that. Explorer _still_ sucks on toast after almost 20 years, and my laptop running an OEM-supplied Windows 7 still locks up occasionally (including the fact that it will too often simply never come back from sleep mode).
Of course, if it weren't for games and a very few other apps, I would be perfectly happy using Linux on all my machines, and I'm not looking forward to whatever Microsoft is going to force on me the next time I buy a computer.
Yes, shortly after I gave up and started over (with OpenOffice) someone told me about that. Unfortunately, I'd already deleted the old file.
The amazing thing is you can hardly take a deep breath without Office applications saying "The document is corrupted, let me fix it for you." even though no damage was apparent and nothing seems to change. I do know from a very unfortunate stint doing VBA in Excel last year that the underlying OLE components are ridiculously fragile and having to reboot the whole machine to get Excel working again was a common occurrence for me. And while I was developing the project (a fairly straightforward but somewhat complex set of forms that was the front end of an order form), several times a day, I'd save the worksheet, close Excel and immediately reopen the worksheet only for Excel to tell me it was corrupt and needed fixing.
It's amazing how often you start up Office and get error messages or complaints about corrupt files or asking you to restore some document from 2 years ago, etc. In all my years of computer use (30+) I've never seen software that has been designed to be so paranoidly defensive about its own bugs... or the need for this kind of defensiveness.
YMMV. I've had the opposite experience. I found Open Office Write to be far easier to use than Word. Of course, since about 2006 I have not created a document in either. The few docs I have created I used reStructured Text. The last time I created something non-trivial in Word, it crashed and destroyed my previously saved document... something that hadn't happened to me with any software in, oh, probably 20 years or more. This was the Mac version of Word. Maybe the "real thing" isn't quite so fragile.
Word is like the human brain: no one understands how it works, it's almost impossible to get it to do what you want consistently, and our capacity to fix it when it's broken is extremely primitive and driven largely by trial-and-error.
Combine that with the fact that many seminaries throughout a good chunk of the 20th century exercised poor judgement in their selection of candidates for ordination and politics being as prevalent in the Church hierarchy as it is in any other large organization and you've got a big problem.
In America although about 1/3 of the population is Catholic
Catholics only make up about 1/5 of the American population... and a lot of those are only nominal Catholics.
So the priests who have had a lapse in their control went and got forgiveness, the Church if following that particular dogma then punished the priest further it would seem like they are not holding on to their ideals.
This couldn't be more wrong. Gaining absolution means that you have shown remorse, etc, for your sin, asked for forgiveness and God has forgiven your sins through his agent the priest. This forgiveness has absolutely nothing to do with temporal consequences for the sinner's behavior (including punishment). If I steal a million dollars and confess the sin to a priest, and receive absolution, I am still culpable for returning the money and facing whatever legal consequences for my crime. This is just as true if the sinner is a priest (or a bishop who covered up an abuser, etc).
The human component of the Church is no different from other human organizations, being made up of flawed people, and subject to abuse, corruption and all the other sorry things people get up to when they work together (and good things, too, but that's not the topic).
The only way to really get run-anywhere capability with Java is for every app to bundle a copy of the JRE, which is precisely what a lot of them do. Honestly, I don't see how that's better.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it really isn't. If someone is reading the New York Times or the Washington Times, his political standing is pretty obvious.
Ditto MSNBC vs. Fox News. Or NPR vs. just about anything else on Talk Radio.
The difference is that a lot of people refuse to acknowledge they are biased, or don't realize it.
You could just get a plastic cling printed with "Opinion" and put it in the lower right corner. Or better yet, use one of the plastic clings printed with Mike or Joel and the Bots that occasionally come in MST3K DVDs. I have one on my mirror in the bathroom.
But we're talking about televisions, and the media made for televisions is made with TV/movie cameras. The big ones. Of course I'm not comparing 3D photos taken with a Nintendo 3DS (which is a pretty cool implementation for such an inexpensive piece of hardware), with IMAX 3D movies. I've seen an IMAX 3D movie in an IMAX theater, and I wasn't impressed with it above any other 3D format I've seen. It wasn't horrible, but for me the 3D effect distracted from at least as much as it enhanced the experience, and I can't see how a 3D TV would be any better.
When 3D undergoes the same revolution in quality that we saw when SD television gave way to HD, I think it will become more widely accepted and used. That said, however, 3D simply does not bring enough to the table to enhance the experience (whether at home or in the theater) compared to the improvements in sound and display technology we've seen in the past few decades. When talkies became possible, silent movies quickly disappeared except for those cases where the artists specifically chose that format for artistic reasons. Ditto color vs. black-and-white. I don't think 3D will ever become that kind of default unless radically new technological advances make it much better. Dolby is a household name because it redefined the sound experience, as is Technicolor. 3D hasn't hit that level of success yet, and I don't think it ever will.
If you like 3D, that's great. It's freely available and doesn't cost much these days. It simply doesn't interest me. But lots of technology struggled for years until just the right implementation (or price) came along. The advances we have seen in the last 20 years, if we stop to take stock of everything we take for granted, are nothing short of amazing.
I've seen a polarized light 3D IMAX movie at least once, at the Tennessee Aquarium in Chattanooga a few years ago. It was pretty cool, but it doesn't work _that_ well as far as I'm concerned. And it definitely wasn't a gimmicky production, but a nice documentary about sea life.
I suspect the "modern" attempts are doing more than just trying to create a patentable implementation and are really trying to improve the experience. I can't imagine that if it were possible to make a cheap, patent-free 3D implementation and use it to sell more sets that companies wouldn't be falling over each other to get it into consumers' hands.
In any event, I don't foresee getting 3D hardware unless it happens to come as part of something I purchase for other reasons, and I can't imagine having any desire to buy media for it beyond maybe one item to "check it out".
It's fine that you like 3D, but from my point of view, the whole argument for it fails at "When it's done well."
I've never seen 3D anything that was "done well". It's just distracting, period. When 3D technology gets to the point where the screen is essentially like looking out a window, then I would find it worth getting, and I don't think we'll be seeing anything like that for many years.
So you deny that you were being stupid with the explanation that you were instead being stupid.
Got it.
You might think differently when your sister comes to visit while your wife is away and you get accused of committing adultery.
Sure, it's easy enough to demonstrate the charge is bogus, but who's going to notice that?
Or better yet, your enemy sends strippers to your house and releases the video of them arriving (and of course leaving out the part where you chase them off).
The "I've got nothing to hide" argument doesn't carry much weight when giving people power they can easily abuse.
As long as you're not Jewish...
Just because something is overdiagnosed doesn't mean it doesn't exist. ADHD is way overdiagnosed, but it's real. I applaud your self-control and discipline. But you shouldn't think that just because you can overcome these kinds of problems that people who can't are necessarily morally flawed.
"I could care less" is usually used sarcastically, but, as we are seeing here, many people take it literally and then complain about it without thinking what the actual words mean.
cf. "could of" - Try diagramming a sentence with that construction. "of" is a verb?
Using "suppose" instead of "supposed", as in "I'm supposed to understand my language well enough to use it correctly."
Think about what the word means in the context... then you realize "suppose" doesn't make sense.
Yes, but it's also what you are paying for when you license an API to do something: documentation sufficient to use it.
I had the unfortunate job of re-writing an Excel VBA app last year and I can say based on my experience that the Microsoft documentation for VBA (much like that for the rest of Office) range between useless and non-existent.
For the vast majority of my searches for "Excel VBA topic", a Microsoft site wouldn't even be on the first page, and perhaps not even the second.
Without forums like Stack Overflow, I would not have been able to finish the task... or it would have taken much longer. As it was, I still had to fall back to trial-and-error because VBA is, easily the buggiest, most fragile and most poorly documented development platform I've ever used in 25+ years.
This is /.
If you read it at all, you can't help but becoming at least mildly fascistic with respect to grammar.
Yes, but different kinds of sensory input can be utilized by the brain in amazing ways. Regardless of how the input comes in, it can be incorporated into the brain's sensory interpretation apparatus in amazing ways, and if the input resolution is high enough it could be used by the visual cortex in ways we probably can't even guess at yet.
This is not about putting eyes on your butt, but extrapolating what could be done with an alternative sensory apparatus and hacking the nervous system.
It should go like this:
"As a Mom, I need eyes on the back of my ass."
If it leads to enough understanding that we successfully regenerate damaged nerves in the human body then it could be one of the most useful pieces of science ever done. Imagine eventually being able to cure things like blindness, paralysis and disorders of the nervous system like Parkinson's!
Sounds pretty darned useful to me.
I never used NT 3.1, but NT 3.5 was excellent, as was 4.0 if you avoided the even Service Packs (they had an alternating good/bad thing going on there too).
I loved using Windows 2000, although Explorer, which has always sucked, was particularly buggy in that release from my experience. I never thought XP was all that bad, and by the time they Service Packed it into submission, I loved it. I miss it, because I don't care what anyone says, Windows 7 performance isn't all that.
Explorer _still_ sucks on toast after almost 20 years, and my laptop running an OEM-supplied Windows 7 still locks up occasionally (including the fact that it will too often simply never come back from sleep mode).
Of course, if it weren't for games and a very few other apps, I would be perfectly happy using Linux on all my machines, and I'm not looking forward to whatever Microsoft is going to force on me the next time I buy a computer.
Yes, shortly after I gave up and started over (with OpenOffice) someone told me about that. Unfortunately, I'd already deleted the old file.
The amazing thing is you can hardly take a deep breath without Office applications saying "The document is corrupted, let me fix it for you." even though no damage was apparent and nothing seems to change. I do know from a very unfortunate stint doing VBA in Excel last year that the underlying OLE components are ridiculously fragile and having to reboot the whole machine to get Excel working again was a common occurrence for me. And while I was developing the project (a fairly straightforward but somewhat complex set of forms that was the front end of an order form), several times a day, I'd save the worksheet, close Excel and immediately reopen the worksheet only for Excel to tell me it was corrupt and needed fixing.
It's amazing how often you start up Office and get error messages or complaints about corrupt files or asking you to restore some document from 2 years ago, etc. In all my years of computer use (30+) I've never seen software that has been designed to be so paranoidly defensive about its own bugs... or the need for this kind of defensiveness.
YMMV. I've had the opposite experience. I found Open Office Write to be far easier to use than Word. Of course, since about 2006 I have not created a document in either. The few docs I have created I used reStructured Text. The last time I created something non-trivial in Word, it crashed and destroyed my previously saved document... something that hadn't happened to me with any software in, oh, probably 20 years or more. This was the Mac version of Word. Maybe the "real thing" isn't quite so fragile.
Word is like the human brain: no one understands how it works, it's almost impossible to get it to do what you want consistently, and our capacity to fix it when it's broken is extremely primitive and driven largely by trial-and-error.
FTFY.
I would. At least if we are talking about Word.
Combine that with the fact that many seminaries throughout a good chunk of the 20th century exercised poor judgement in their selection of candidates for ordination and politics being as prevalent in the Church hierarchy as it is in any other large organization and you've got a big problem.
In America although about 1/3 of the population is Catholic
Catholics only make up about 1/5 of the American population... and a lot of those are only nominal Catholics.
So the priests who have had a lapse in their control went and got forgiveness, the Church if following that particular dogma then punished the priest further it would seem like they are not holding on to their ideals.
This couldn't be more wrong. Gaining absolution means that you have shown remorse, etc, for your sin, asked for forgiveness and God has forgiven your sins through his agent the priest. This forgiveness has absolutely nothing to do with temporal consequences for the sinner's behavior (including punishment). If I steal a million dollars and confess the sin to a priest, and receive absolution, I am still culpable for returning the money and facing whatever legal consequences for my crime. This is just as true if the sinner is a priest (or a bishop who covered up an abuser, etc).
The human component of the Church is no different from other human organizations, being made up of flawed people, and subject to abuse, corruption and all the other sorry things people get up to when they work together (and good things, too, but that's not the topic).
The only way to really get run-anywhere capability with Java is for every app to bundle a copy of the JRE, which is precisely what a lot of them do. Honestly, I don't see how that's better.
You're right. But to be fair, _all_ enterprise software is that bad.