Some, but I think most of it has to do with the "tough on crime" image that everyone in politics has to have in order to succeed. Cops don't get any points for letting innocent people go free; they get points for catching criminals, where suspect and criminal are effectively synonymous. DAs have both the authority to bring or dismiss charges AND prosecute those cases, but they can only build political capital by winning cases, not by being reasonable. A good DA then goes on to become a legislator, where he introduces bills to scoop up more criminals, because he's a difference maker. And of course the governor/president signs any criminal law presented to him -- it would be political suicide to do otherwise. Voters don't care what the laws are about; they just don't want criminals running around! Finally, judges are supposed to be independent from the executive branch, but who signs their paycheck? The jury gets to vote, yes, but the judge is in full control of what it is they're actually voting about. Also juries can only vote by unanimity -- dissent is quashed, and deemed a mistrial. (IMO, anything other than a unanimous verdict of guilt -- especially given the ridiculous process of jury selection -- should be deemed a verdict of not guilty. Every single juror should have veto power.) And finally, defense attorneys, prosecutors, and judges all eat lunch with each other daily. The sad thing is that this is the very best system we've come up with so far.
As my Commander in Chief once said... "Government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem."
Which is a great sound bite, but not particularly meaningful. Government, like any imperfect solution, replaces one set of problems with another, hopefully lesser, set of problems. I would argue that the problems of our particular government are still trivial compared to anarchy.
Of course, most people who cite that particular quote really mean "less government is better," not "I want anarchy!" But calling for less government is just a passive way of saying "I want government to do the things that *I* think are important, not the things that *you* think are important," and since importance is typically relative to our position in life, and since we don't live in a meritocracy (as much as we'd like to believe we do), it might actually be worthwhile to consider the things that other people feel are important.
It was actually a motorcycle, not a bicycle. On a related note, I think anyone who revs their chopper at 3AM in a residential neighborhood deserves to have it stolen. I'm looking at you, neighbor across-the-street.
Good luck defining encryption such that the scope is neither overly broad nor too narrowly tailored. The former would all but guarantee that the law would be struck down in the courts regardless of any other Constitutional challenges, while the latter would make circumvention trivial.
Now if only Apple would provide high bandwidth to downloaders. FFS, if my Usenet provider can max out my connection @ $.30/GB, Apple should be able to pull it off at what amounts to $2/GB best case, though much higher on avg.
Since they're losing money on each console sold, I don't think that qualifies as a reward. Just make sure to buy secondhand games too. Of course, they'll just chalk up the lost sales to piracy, but that's their problem.
Some laptops won't run with the battery removed, and some batteries can't be removed (easily).
Nonetheless, you can't have it both ways. Either you get a topped off battery that's ready when you need it (at the cost of slightly diminishing the life of the battery each day), or you have a disconnected battery that will self-discharge even if it's not in use. As you say, if it's 100% a desktop replacement, then removing the battery is worth a shot, provided you remember to re-insert it and allow it to charge before mobile use. If you're regularly using it for mobile use, however, you'll probably just have to suck it up.
It would be nice to see a switch to electrically disconnect the battery without the need to remove it, allowing for the best of both worlds, but that's probably expecting too much.
In researching airplane wings and superimposing different airplane wing types on the site to scale, the wing of a 747, at over 2,500 sq. ft., became an ideal configuration to maximize the views and provide a self supporting roof.
Let me guess -- it creates a lifelike visual stage with mellow yet crisp organic textures and deep black interscene silences. The muscular yet deft support structure enhances the vista responses of the viewer, allowing full appreciation for the rich yet subtle display of thermal inversion in the valley below.
Wide aspect ratios were compelling as they take advantage of our natural FOV. 3D is just kind of MEH
By that logic, 3D should be compelling because it takes advantage of our natural depth perception.
IMO, the reason 3D it's *not* is because depth information usually fades into the background (metaphorically speaking) unless we're actively using it. Since we're not trying to interact with objects in movies and, for the most part, objects in movies aren't being thrown toward the viewer, there's very little relevant content or context where depth information is relevant. Motion is the other factor, but most non-action films have very little motion. Avatar was possibly an exception, but that could arguably be classified as an action flick. Even then, I know I had to consciously check to notice whether scenes were still in 3D, and I suspect most people forgot they were watching 3D at those points as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Some, but I think most of it has to do with the "tough on crime" image that everyone in politics has to have in order to succeed. Cops don't get any points for letting innocent people go free; they get points for catching criminals, where suspect and criminal are effectively synonymous. DAs have both the authority to bring or dismiss charges AND prosecute those cases, but they can only build political capital by winning cases, not by being reasonable. A good DA then goes on to become a legislator, where he introduces bills to scoop up more criminals, because he's a difference maker. And of course the governor/president signs any criminal law presented to him -- it would be political suicide to do otherwise. Voters don't care what the laws are about; they just don't want criminals running around! Finally, judges are supposed to be independent from the executive branch, but who signs their paycheck? The jury gets to vote, yes, but the judge is in full control of what it is they're actually voting about. Also juries can only vote by unanimity -- dissent is quashed, and deemed a mistrial. (IMO, anything other than a unanimous verdict of guilt -- especially given the ridiculous process of jury selection -- should be deemed a verdict of not guilty. Every single juror should have veto power.) And finally, defense attorneys, prosecutors, and judges all eat lunch with each other daily. The sad thing is that this is the very best system we've come up with so far.
The RAM is soldered in/ If you buy it with 2GB, you can't upgrade it. If you buy it with 4 GB, you can't upgrade it.
Impossible?! The only thing easier than replacing a soldered component is replacing a socketed component! ;)
Power savings is largely a myth.
Not just capacity -- everything I've seen has shown that the SSD power savings is, in large part, a myth.
And the very best boy hiding in your attic.
I see. How do you feel about that?
Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Select, Start
In reference to Einstein's dead body, of course.
That's just perceived motion as he spins in his grave.
AWESOME!! I pick the ship from Mass Effect, for obvious reasons.
I'm right around the median income in the US and I most certainly pay a significant income tax.
Then you're doing it wrong.
As my Commander in Chief once said... "Government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem."
Which is a great sound bite, but not particularly meaningful. Government, like any imperfect solution, replaces one set of problems with another, hopefully lesser, set of problems. I would argue that the problems of our particular government are still trivial compared to anarchy.
Of course, most people who cite that particular quote really mean "less government is better," not "I want anarchy!" But calling for less government is just a passive way of saying "I want government to do the things that *I* think are important, not the things that *you* think are important," and since importance is typically relative to our position in life, and since we don't live in a meritocracy (as much as we'd like to believe we do), it might actually be worthwhile to consider the things that other people feel are important.
It was actually a motorcycle, not a bicycle. On a related note, I think anyone who revs their chopper at 3AM in a residential neighborhood deserves to have it stolen. I'm looking at you, neighbor across-the-street.
Good luck defining encryption such that the scope is neither overly broad nor too narrowly tailored. The former would all but guarantee that the law would be struck down in the courts regardless of any other Constitutional challenges, while the latter would make circumvention trivial.
Allowing apps to be sorted by user rating would be a great start.
Now if only Apple would provide high bandwidth to downloaders. FFS, if my Usenet provider can max out my connection @ $.30/GB, Apple should be able to pull it off at what amounts to $2/GB best case, though much higher on avg.
Me too. Maybe I'll finally give Facebook a try.
It's all fun and games until somebody gets eaten by a bear.
Sure hope the glass stairs in that Apple store are less prone to breakage than the glass in the iPhone 4 ;)
Since they're losing money on each console sold, I don't think that qualifies as a reward. Just make sure to buy secondhand games too. Of course, they'll just chalk up the lost sales to piracy, but that's their problem.
Pfft, nanoscopes. Anyone not using a femtoscope might as well just turn in their nerd card now.
Some laptops won't run with the battery removed, and some batteries can't be removed (easily).
Nonetheless, you can't have it both ways. Either you get a topped off battery that's ready when you need it (at the cost of slightly diminishing the life of the battery each day), or you have a disconnected battery that will self-discharge even if it's not in use. As you say, if it's 100% a desktop replacement, then removing the battery is worth a shot, provided you remember to re-insert it and allow it to charge before mobile use. If you're regularly using it for mobile use, however, you'll probably just have to suck it up.
It would be nice to see a switch to electrically disconnect the battery without the need to remove it, allowing for the best of both worlds, but that's probably expecting too much.
In researching airplane wings and superimposing different airplane wing types on the site to scale, the wing of a 747, at over 2,500 sq. ft., became an ideal configuration to maximize the views and provide a self supporting roof.
Let me guess -- it creates a lifelike visual stage with mellow yet crisp organic textures and deep black interscene silences. The muscular yet deft support structure enhances the vista responses of the viewer, allowing full appreciation for the rich yet subtle display of thermal inversion in the valley below.
Finally someone said it.
Let's put an end to Trying.
Either that, or he's got an extremely pessimistic view of Google's ability to develop a QA test suite!
Wide aspect ratios were compelling as they take advantage of our natural FOV. 3D is just kind of MEH
By that logic, 3D should be compelling because it takes advantage of our natural depth perception.
IMO, the reason 3D it's *not* is because depth information usually fades into the background (metaphorically speaking) unless we're actively using it. Since we're not trying to interact with objects in movies and, for the most part, objects in movies aren't being thrown toward the viewer, there's very little relevant content or context where depth information is relevant. Motion is the other factor, but most non-action films have very little motion. Avatar was possibly an exception, but that could arguably be classified as an action flick. Even then, I know I had to consciously check to notice whether scenes were still in 3D, and I suspect most people forgot they were watching 3D at those points as well.