Well the GS3 came 6 months before the iPhone 5, and as I said in my previous post it already has better specs. GS4 will be far ahead, and unless it launches something with superior specs and soon it will stay far behind, maybe for good.
That is not a problem exclusive to smartphones. It is probably the most important problems mankind has at the moment. Finding an efficient way to store electric energy. While nobody finds out a revolutionary way to do that battery technology evolution can barely keep (if even that) with the increasing requirements of electronic devices.
The GS3 mini specs are reasonably high, it has lower resolution and lower processor speed than the GS3, but higher resolutions for the same technology require bigger screens and higher processor specs are only really necessary for higher resolutions. The camera could be better, given, but for everything else it seems very reasoable.
But if you must have higher resolution for a smaller phone, the technology seems to be catching up to your tastes. With the GS4 441 dpi technology you will probably have a high enough resolution in the GS4 mini, and hopefully they will decide for a 8 MP camera too.
A very big bump mind you. Much higher than any spec bump Apple has provided between models, for example. GS3 was already superior to the IPhone 5 and it was launched first, now it will happen again with GS4 and the 5S, that is, if the 5S comes before the GS5.
Full HD screen, a 1.9GHz processor, and a 13 Megapixel camera. What exactly more did you expect from this phone? That it would cook for you and make your bed? All improvements are incremental improvements in this market, because the functions the device must perform do not change that much. That said, GS3 specs were already higher than those of the iPhone 5, now with GS4 Samsung leaves Apple far behind.
If that is your problem at least with Samsung you have the mini models. With Apple you are stuck to a single model, and Apple is following the Galaxy S trend of increasing screen size.
Yes, if it must be "covered" at all to be honest. In most places in the world shouting fire at a theater, for example, is not a crime anymore. It will, more likely than not, get you expelled from the theater, though.
But it is. As long as there are human beings there will be art. Money or no money. It had been like so long before copyright came to be and will be like so long after.
Exactly, people should be able to say whatever they want, be it libel, slander, advertisement, etc (fraud requires more than just communication, you need to get the money at some point). If what is said is proven untruthful the hurt part can then pursue its legal compensation, restricted by civil law, though. Speech should never be punished by criminal law. THAT is freedom of speech.
Suppression about Nazi ideology is only one of the thought suppressions in effect in Europe at the moment. This very article is an example of another. Although they failed in pushing it in the way they wanted they are trying to force their political correctness over people's throats and suppressing any many times outlawing any manifestation that goes against it.
Women underpayment has nothing to do with equal rights. Legally they have the exact same rights (arguably the have more rights). That is free market. If they are undervalued the companies that take the opportunity and contract them will pay less for the same work, have a competitive advantage, and prevail, more and more companies will see this and the salaries will raise because of increased demand until it reaches and equilibrium. If the equilibrium reached will be a point where women still earn less (which I have no clue if it will be the case or not) it will only mean they are worth less. The opposite can very well happen if they are worth more.
Now regarding gay marriage, it is also achieved in many countries, and throughout EU (which is what is at discussion here) there are just a few exceptions.
And the list does not go on. You will be hard pressed with finding anything more in it to be honest.
It is an attempt to legislate belief. The idea is to suppress unwanted belief until it dies out, as you pointed yourself. That is basically trying to control how people think, and I have to agree with you that it is effective in many cases. Fortunately not in all cases, though, especially not in cases where the beliefs are based on biological imperatives.
Their intention is to eliminate stereotypes (from people's minds) by suppressing information. Basically it is exactly the same idea and method used in 1984.
In 1984, by using propaganda, eliminating words that had unwanted meanings from the language (newspeak) and applying other forms of "education" (read brain washing) you aim to produce only individuals that accept the government ideas. It is the wet dream of any totalitarian regimen.
They seem more and more like the 16th century puritanists, who censored everything they thought unfit accordingly to their beliefs. Just their religion now is the politically correct.
I am all for giving people equal rights regardless of any difference they may have among themselves, but that has already been achieved. What they are trying to do is exactly the same the religious extremists did centuries ago. To force their moral standards upon others, by actually suppressing any alternative viewpoint.
So? Trying to suppress a philosophy is still a violence against freedom of thought, no matter how warped the philosophy may be. Trying to legislate belief is a sure way to a dystopic society that would make Nazi German seem like paradise on Earth.
Who are you (or them) to define what are "positive" and what are "negative" stereotypes. You seem like the 16th century puritanists censoring everything they thought unfit accordingly to their beliefs. Just the religion now is the politically correct.
I am all for giving people equal rights regardless of any difference they may have among themselves, but that has already been achieved. What you are trying to do is exactly the same the religious extremists did centuries ago. To enforce your moral standards upon others.
Yes, lets simply ignore that men and women are biologically different in many many ways and try to force them to be equal, regardless of any objection they may have.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is considerable better than LCD in almost everything.
* unless Apple launches...
Well the GS3 came 6 months before the iPhone 5, and as I said in my previous post it already has better specs. GS4 will be far ahead, and unless it launches something with superior specs and soon it will stay far behind, maybe for good.
That is not a problem exclusive to smartphones. It is probably the most important problems mankind has at the moment. Finding an efficient way to store electric energy. While nobody finds out a revolutionary way to do that battery technology evolution can barely keep (if even that) with the increasing requirements of electronic devices.
The GS3 mini specs are reasonably high, it has lower resolution and lower processor speed than the GS3, but higher resolutions for the same technology require bigger screens and higher processor specs are only really necessary for higher resolutions. The camera could be better, given, but for everything else it seems very reasoable.
But if you must have higher resolution for a smaller phone, the technology seems to be catching up to your tastes. With the GS4 441 dpi technology you will probably have a high enough resolution in the GS4 mini, and hopefully they will decide for a 8 MP camera too.
A very big bump mind you. Much higher than any spec bump Apple has provided between models, for example. GS3 was already superior to the IPhone 5 and it was launched first, now it will happen again with GS4 and the 5S, that is, if the 5S comes before the GS5.
Full HD screen, a 1.9GHz processor, and a 13 Megapixel camera. What exactly more did you expect from this phone? That it would cook for you and make your bed? All improvements are incremental improvements in this market, because the functions the device must perform do not change that much. That said, GS3 specs were already higher than those of the iPhone 5, now with GS4 Samsung leaves Apple far behind.
If that is your problem at least with Samsung you have the mini models. With Apple you are stuck to a single model, and Apple is following the Galaxy S trend of increasing screen size.
Yes, if it must be "covered" at all to be honest. In most places in the world shouting fire at a theater, for example, is not a crime anymore. It will, more likely than not, get you expelled from the theater, though.
I don't know where the hell did you take that idea from, but I guess you think we should jail anyone that invites friends to watch a movie with them.
Sure it has.
But it is. As long as there are human beings there will be art. Money or no money. It had been like so long before copyright came to be and will be like so long after.
Exactly, people should be able to say whatever they want, be it libel, slander, advertisement, etc (fraud requires more than just communication, you need to get the money at some point). If what is said is proven untruthful the hurt part can then pursue its legal compensation, restricted by civil law, though. Speech should never be punished by criminal law. THAT is freedom of speech.
Borrowing it from his friend and downloading it is exactly the same.
Suppression about Nazi ideology is only one of the thought suppressions in effect in Europe at the moment. This very article is an example of another. Although they failed in pushing it in the way they wanted they are trying to force their political correctness over people's throats and suppressing any many times outlawing any manifestation that goes against it.
Women underpayment has nothing to do with equal rights. Legally they have the exact same rights (arguably the have more rights). That is free market. If they are undervalued the companies that take the opportunity and contract them will pay less for the same work, have a competitive advantage, and prevail, more and more companies will see this and the salaries will raise because of increased demand until it reaches and equilibrium. If the equilibrium reached will be a point where women still earn less (which I have no clue if it will be the case or not) it will only mean they are worth less. The opposite can very well happen if they are worth more.
Now regarding gay marriage, it is also achieved in many countries, and throughout EU (which is what is at discussion here) there are just a few exceptions.
And the list does not go on. You will be hard pressed with finding anything more in it to be honest.
It is an attempt to legislate belief. The idea is to suppress unwanted belief until it dies out, as you pointed yourself. That is basically trying to control how people think, and I have to agree with you that it is effective in many cases. Fortunately not in all cases, though, especially not in cases where the beliefs are based on biological imperatives.
Their intention is to eliminate stereotypes (from people's minds) by suppressing information. Basically it is exactly the same idea and method used in 1984.
In 1984, by using propaganda, eliminating words that had unwanted meanings from the language (newspeak) and applying other forms of "education" (read brain washing) you aim to produce only individuals that accept the government ideas. It is the wet dream of any totalitarian regimen.
Very Orwellian indeed.
They seem more and more like the 16th century puritanists, who censored everything they thought unfit accordingly to their beliefs. Just their religion now is the politically correct.
I am all for giving people equal rights regardless of any difference they may have among themselves, but that has already been achieved. What they are trying to do is exactly the same the religious extremists did centuries ago. To force their moral standards upon others, by actually suppressing any alternative viewpoint.
So? Trying to suppress a philosophy is still a violence against freedom of thought, no matter how warped the philosophy may be. Trying to legislate belief is a sure way to a dystopic society that would make Nazi German seem like paradise on Earth.
Who are you (or them) to define what are "positive" and what are "negative" stereotypes. You seem like the 16th century puritanists censoring everything they thought unfit accordingly to their beliefs. Just the religion now is the politically correct.
I am all for giving people equal rights regardless of any difference they may have among themselves, but that has already been achieved. What you are trying to do is exactly the same the religious extremists did centuries ago. To enforce your moral standards upon others.
Yes, lets simply ignore that men and women are biologically different in many many ways and try to force them to be equal, regardless of any objection they may have.
Do you? Fantastic!!! Now you just have to admit you were horribly wrong and you will be the better person!
Still here. ;)
If you don't want to play the multiplayer you can play the campaign. Actually there are a lot of stuff in the campaigns that are not available in MP.
The only bad thing about this game is the ridiculous always online DRM Blizzard decided to implement even for single player mode.