It was part of the question and the answer that we're talking about the same magnitude of acceleration. And since F=ma means the force depends on both the 'a' and the 'm', to get the same a with a ludicrously higher m means a ludicrously higher force.
It would also of course take ludicrously more energy, yes. But if you were to apply the same force for the same amount of time, then you would actually expend the same energy accelerating the universe, though the amount of acceleration would be ludicrously lower.
It doesn't matter much how the time in your frame of reference relates to times of "stationary" observers; it's still the same amount of time for you.
True! But it does bring the future to you that much quicker. And let me tell you, from my perspective of a person from a few nanoseconds ago, the present-ne-future is an amazing place!
"An Air Force Investigator" is hardly just "some dude". And I guess you thought the fake quote with made up info was funny. Great ways to try and falsely trivialize something, debunking 101.
But Mr. Redacted Air Force Investigator's informant is. Not that it really matters; if we're thinking calmly instead of grasping for proof of the alien conspiracy, you'd note it's utterly ridiculous for someone connected to reality to claim to know the mechanism by which the two saucers of unknown make and origin were brought down. No wonder you thought my attempt at humor was an attempt at debunking anything, rather than simply making fun of something that came pre-debunked and pre-trivialized.
If there's one time to ever RTFA, it's when it's a government document supposedly admitting UFOs of the flying-saucer variety exist and were found near Roswell.
Turns out this isn't that. It's the FBI noting that some dude claimed that two 50-foot saucers landed near Roswell because the nearby radar station disrupted their control mechanisms, and then doing nothing.
"Disrupted by the radar you say? Ah of course. And where are these saucers? Oh they've mysteriously vanished since you saw them the night of the full moon. Got it. Thank you, citizen. We'll definitely look into that -- might be the Russians you know."
Only other thing to say is -- good job, submitter. Made me look.
Because I figured people who aren't e-douches would immediately understand that by saying "even" the fictional super-material would fail, I'm also implying that any real material you could make a data-storage-cube out of, including those undiscovered, would not be strong enough.
It's being weeded out because, like a great many animals, it was unprepared for the arrival of industrialized homo sapiens, and the resulting habitat loss and poaching. It would be quite unfair to judge it unfit for its environment, when it's environment was mostly eliminated by humans.
But you aren't describing random mutations and random evolution.
Absolutely is.
The bump pattern was the result of random mutation.
In their environment, the crabs with a certain mutation were more likely to survive. They were the ones that proliferated.
It's true that in this case the survival criteria were dictated by man. If you draw the (I think useful) distinction between the endeavors of man, and "nature", then this wasn't "natural selection". But the crabs and their genes don't know that! If somehow those same bumps had given the crabs a significant survival advantage in the wild, the same result would have occurred.
It wouldn't be visible once it passed the event horizon. That's the defining characteristic of a black hole's event horizon: nothing escapes, including light.
Not to mention that even that fictional stuff they made the Ringworld out of would be ripped apart well before it reached the event horizon.
The US border patrol operates fixed and roving checkpoints as much as 100 miles from the nearest border, even on roads that do not cross the border. The fact that you are unambiguously on the U.S. side of the border is irrelevant. You can still be searched and your stuff seized without warrant and now without suspicion.
I know, I've gone through those checkpoints. It's irrelevant to them that I'm not actually at the border because they're using a crazy definition of "border", but it's very relevant to the Constitutional issues. That's the whole fucking point!
First, the actual border between the U.S. and international waters is several miles out. The place where water meets shore is not actually the border.
Second, people living "on the coast" aren't literally on the coast, they are unambiguously on the U.S. side of the border, but "on" in that context means "adjacent to". So it's basically a pun on two different uses of the word "on".
Third and most ridiculously, the definition of border they are using includes being 50 miles from the border!
So even if we took the actual land/water line to be the border, and accepted the metaphorical usage of "on" in the phrase "I live on the coast in California".... If you were living 50 miles away from the coast, you wouldn't say "I live on the coast"! You'd say "I live an hour away from the coast."
You don't make the medicine out of the plant, which would be stupid because they're rare and hard to get, but rather you study the plants so that you can then make synthetics based on what you learn.
The number of medicines derived from exotic plants is huge, and used to treat things from cancer to parkinsons.
Don't let your hate for hippies become just anti-hippie bullshit blinding you to reality.
The Fossil Record does not show that. Thus the term "missing link" - there is no set to show that - just a hypothesis, and an unprovable one at that. We have as much DNA shared with the ape as we do a dolphin, mind you.
So you don't believe micro-evolution can explain the chain of fossils that show a trend towards more upright posture and larger brain, and won't accept it until we can show a continuous line of ancestry between us and the first ape. Why do you believe "micro-"evolution is so limited as to be unable to explain these links, in contradiction to experimental evidence?
And that second sentence is just non-factual bullshit. Thank God you at least said "the ape" instead of monkey, but what ape? Our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, shares 96% of its DNA with us, though it had at least a few million years of separate evolution. Dolphins do not. You must have read that they share "many" of the same chromosomes, and somehow wrongly figured that means just as many as a chimpanzee.
Of course "somehow" is your preconceived belief filter; you probably just read the headline about dolphins and jumped to whatever conclusion helped "prove" to yourself that evolution is bullshit. You're desperately trying to drive a wedge between demonstrable fact and a theory you have an issue with, but all that wedge is doing is demonstrating the gaps in your own knowledge and reasoning ability.
Actually that is false. Micro-evolution is accepted more or less as described - minor changes the same species while Macro-evolution is defined as one species changing into another species - e.g. monkey evolving into homosapien. Macro-evolution has not been proven in a lab; only Micro-evolution.
Speciation has been proven in a lab. That's "macro-evolution", one (subset of a) species turning into another, though of course the mechanism itself is micro-evolution, because again there's no actual difference. Speciation is how we branched off from our common ancestor with the apes (which was not a monkey, please tell me that was a joke making fun of those who criticize evolution while being completely clueless of it).
So then the only thing you're left to have a problem with is that we're also quite different from that distant ancestor. But we don't need "macro-evolution" to explain this. Many minor changes over many generations results in large changes. Which is even what the fossil record shows -- over time our ancestors became less like the ancient ape and more like us.
Looking only at the end-points, you see "macro-evolution". But in between, there's nothing but micro-evolution.
Do you accept micro-evolution or not? Or do you just not understand how small changes can add up to large ones? There's no option where you accept lab-demonstrated fact, understand how evolution works, and reject speciation.
You're missing the entire point of the article. The problem is in practice the average person is entirely incapable of testing many scientific hypotheses, let alone understanding the reasoning behind them and their ramifications. Yes, in theory, if I spent 7 years getting a doctorate in physics, I could be seeing and understanding actual evidence. Otherwise, I'm just taking everything on faith. It does me no good if a hypothesis is testable in theory. Priests can just as well tell me that they're able to replicate miracles all the time for all the difference it makes to me.
That's what the article is talking about? Well then that's just bullshit abuse of semantics. That's not even close to the same kind of faith, and I say that as someone who has actual spiritual, religious faith. The "faith" in science is what I'd call "trust".
Yes, of course I have not actually tested nor am capable of testing many things in science which I believe are true. Yes, I am taking the word of a scientist (or someone who took the word of a scientist, etc) and believing it without direct evidence. However I also believe that the evidence exists, that the scientist is basing their statements on experimental evidence as one would expect from science. I trust the scientist. I trust the professor.
Also, because this is regular everyday trust in a human being, I know that first my trust in any particular authority could be misplaced, and second even if the scientist is trustworthy, new evidence could come along and the thing I believed yesterday could turn out to be false. In fact there are certainly things which I believe which have been known to be false for quite a while but it was simply never communicated to me. And that's all okay.
I do not believe that the Minister of my church or any other religious authority anywhere has sat down and worked out a rigorous proof that Jesus Loves Me This I Know. I have faith that Jesus loves me. Actual, true faith. If my Minister turns out to be untrustworthy, that doesn't affect my faith. If he or another authority abandons the church and declares that God doesn't exist, that doesn't affect my faith. Because my faith was never predicated on the belief that there exists proof. I know it doesn't.
These are completely different ways of "believing" in something.
Is that the whole problem? That people really can't distinguish between the kind of trust you have that your architect's blueprints are based on sound engineering, and the trust you have that your prayers will be answered? Ergo science equals religion? If true, it's no wonder we're in such a mess.
No, that's not necessarily true. That's an assumption, and one rather largely unproven. Thereby, it's not demonstrable and is therefore faith, not science.
No, it is necessarily true. If a species is somehow separated into two populations, and one or both of those populations undergoes micro-evolutionary changes that cause it to be unable (or unwilling in the case of sexual selection) to breed with the other, then that's macro-evolution right there. They will no longer share genetic information, and any further "micro"-evolutionary changes will continue to cause the two populations -- now two species -- to diverge.
And yes, we have seen exactly this in labs.
Micro- vs macro- evolution is a red herring, a canard. There is no actual difference. The mechanism is exactly the same. You can't say you're okay with one and not the other. That's just a trick to be able to say you don't believe in (macro-)evolution, yet still appear connected to reality. But it doesn't work.
Although you are mostly correct, I feel just pedantic enough to point out that central nervous system depression is nothing at all like psychological depression, you may as well be comparing psychological depression to a tropical depression.
And chronically depressed people should avoid hurricanes! See, it fits.
There's a good reason they aren't touting it. Turns out that making logic gates that can sense 8 different voltage levels is much more complicated, area-intensive, and slower than just being able to slam the output to one of the voltage rails as hard as you want/need. They tried and tried, but it was a dog all around.
Then came the real breakthrough -- the realization that you can encode the 8 states in octal using 3 normal binary signals, and so simulate an octal circuit, only faster and smaller!
But then calling it an "octal" chip seemed kinda silly, so they have mostly been keeping quiet about it and letting people think it had to do with the number of cores in certain platforms.
That's exactly what I'm on about -- you using "deserving" to take the whole issue of suspects where a taser or other violent takedown isn't required, but the existence of such a less-lethal weapon encourages its use, and sweep it under the rug. Yes, in the context of a situation where it is unambiguously the case that for their own and public safety the police must use one of either a club, taser, or gun, the taser is probably better. That doesn't actually justify the danger of a taser, because in reality the set of situations where that is the case is a small subset of the total uses of tasers, and the set of situations in which each of those options would be used if they were the only tool at hand are not the equivalent. The only question that matters is whether the danger is justifiable in the situations in which it is actually used.
It's similar to talking about contraceptives, and saying that "coitus interruptus" is 96% effective. Under perfect circumstances, when it's one of the hardest methods to use "perfectly". Under typical, real-world circumstances, you should start painting the baby's room if you rely on this method. It's not exactly the same, since we're not talking efficacy, but rather situations in which a taser might be used that aren't ideal and can increase risk to the suspect. But the point is the same: framing the debate in terms of ideal circumstances to say they aren't unsafe is unrealistic and begging the question.
Long story short, it's just a more subtle version of the "It's better than being shot!" argument, which is a terrible argument.
The fact of the matter is that, with proper training and handling, a Taser device, when used in its intended setting against a deserving individual, is far safer to innocent bystanders, the environment, public safety personnel, and in most cases the suspects themselves than any other incapacitation method that I've ever heard of.
What I don't understand is how the target "deserving" to be tasered affects the safety of the taser in a manner similar to proper training, proper handling, and use in an intended setting which are listed in parallel.
Am I supposed to infer that if the target isn't deserving that it's (somehow) not as safe? That doesn't sound like a plus to me!
Or was the part about "deserving" just thrown in there so that I wouldn't care so much about the cases where tasers are not safer for suspects, because hey, this hypothetical suspect hypothetically deserved it and hey why not just assume that means real suspects harmed by tasers deserved it too?
The quote covers both voting directly on policies (Direct Democracy) and voting for representatives (Representative Democracy), both of which are kinds of democracy, with our democracy being the latter. So, awareness of our country being a Democratic Republic would be irrelevant if you're aware of what those terms mean.
Hell, they had a demo unit in freaking Target when I went in there the other day.
Though with the console bolted down it was a pain in the ass to put my head at the right angle to see the 3d clearly (and to *not* be able to see both images with both eyes and make my eyes want to cross). The effect was neat, though it seemed like it'd need careful tuning to keep from causing headaches. Kinda funny how there are people simply turning the 3D off. Well as long as they still enjoy it.
I think the thing is too expensive even with 3D, no way i'd buy it if I thought I was just going to turn off the thing that made it so expensive. Then again, I haven't bought any of the more reasonably priced portables either. So my opinion is kinda irrelevant.:P
Slashdot Mirror
It was part of the question and the answer that we're talking about the same magnitude of acceleration. And since F=ma means the force depends on both the 'a' and the 'm', to get the same a with a ludicrously higher m means a ludicrously higher force.
It would also of course take ludicrously more energy, yes. But if you were to apply the same force for the same amount of time, then you would actually expend the same energy accelerating the universe, though the amount of acceleration would be ludicrously lower.
It doesn't matter much how the time in your frame of reference relates to times of "stationary" observers; it's still the same amount of time for you.
True! But it does bring the future to you that much quicker. And let me tell you, from my perspective of a person from a few nanoseconds ago, the present-ne-future is an amazing place!
"An Air Force Investigator" is hardly just "some dude". And I guess you thought the fake quote with made up info was funny. Great ways to try and falsely trivialize something, debunking 101.
But Mr. Redacted Air Force Investigator's informant is. Not that it really matters; if we're thinking calmly instead of grasping for proof of the alien conspiracy, you'd note it's utterly ridiculous for someone connected to reality to claim to know the mechanism by which the two saucers of unknown make and origin were brought down. No wonder you thought my attempt at humor was an attempt at debunking anything, rather than simply making fun of something that came pre-debunked and pre-trivialized.
If there's one time to ever RTFA, it's when it's a government document supposedly admitting UFOs of the flying-saucer variety exist and were found near Roswell.
Turns out this isn't that. It's the FBI noting that some dude claimed that two 50-foot saucers landed near Roswell because the nearby radar station disrupted their control mechanisms, and then doing nothing.
"Disrupted by the radar you say? Ah of course. And where are these saucers? Oh they've mysteriously vanished since you saw them the night of the full moon. Got it. Thank you, citizen. We'll definitely look into that -- might be the Russians you know."
Only other thing to say is -- good job, submitter. Made me look.
Why did you even post that, seriously?
Because I figured people who aren't e-douches would immediately understand that by saying "even" the fictional super-material would fail, I'm also implying that any real material you could make a data-storage-cube out of, including those undiscovered, would not be strong enough.
Understand the relevance now?
It's being weeded out because, like a great many animals, it was unprepared for the arrival of industrialized homo sapiens, and the resulting habitat loss and poaching. It would be quite unfair to judge it unfit for its environment, when it's environment was mostly eliminated by humans.
But you aren't describing random mutations and random evolution.
Absolutely is.
The bump pattern was the result of random mutation.
In their environment, the crabs with a certain mutation were more likely to survive. They were the ones that proliferated.
It's true that in this case the survival criteria were dictated by man. If you draw the (I think useful) distinction between the endeavors of man, and "nature", then this wasn't "natural selection". But the crabs and their genes don't know that! If somehow those same bumps had given the crabs a significant survival advantage in the wild, the same result would have occurred.
Nice to see something other than nuclear disaster coming out of Japan.
Eh... you might want to read the disclaimer on the back of the box.
It wouldn't be visible once it passed the event horizon. That's the defining characteristic of a black hole's event horizon: nothing escapes, including light.
Not to mention that even that fictional stuff they made the Ringworld out of would be ripped apart well before it reached the event horizon.
The US border patrol operates fixed and roving checkpoints as much as 100 miles from the nearest border, even on roads that do not cross the border. The fact that you are unambiguously on the U.S. side of the border is irrelevant. You can still be searched and your stuff seized without warrant and now without suspicion.
I know, I've gone through those checkpoints. It's irrelevant to them that I'm not actually at the border because they're using a crazy definition of "border", but it's very relevant to the Constitutional issues. That's the whole fucking point!
It's crazy on several levels.
First, the actual border between the U.S. and international waters is several miles out. The place where water meets shore is not actually the border.
Second, people living "on the coast" aren't literally on the coast, they are unambiguously on the U.S. side of the border, but "on" in that context means "adjacent to". So it's basically a pun on two different uses of the word "on".
Third and most ridiculously, the definition of border they are using includes being 50 miles from the border!
So even if we took the actual land/water line to be the border, and accepted the metaphorical usage of "on" in the phrase "I live on the coast in California".... If you were living 50 miles away from the coast, you wouldn't say "I live on the coast"! You'd say "I live an hour away from the coast."
That's why it's crazy.
You don't make the medicine out of the plant, which would be stupid because they're rare and hard to get, but rather you study the plants so that you can then make synthetics based on what you learn.
The number of medicines derived from exotic plants is huge, and used to treat things from cancer to parkinsons.
Don't let your hate for hippies become just anti-hippie bullshit blinding you to reality.
The Fossil Record does not show that. Thus the term "missing link" - there is no set to show that - just a hypothesis, and an unprovable one at that. We have as much DNA shared with the ape as we do a dolphin, mind you.
So you don't believe micro-evolution can explain the chain of fossils that show a trend towards more upright posture and larger brain, and won't accept it until we can show a continuous line of ancestry between us and the first ape. Why do you believe "micro-"evolution is so limited as to be unable to explain these links, in contradiction to experimental evidence?
And that second sentence is just non-factual bullshit. Thank God you at least said "the ape" instead of monkey, but what ape? Our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, shares 96% of its DNA with us, though it had at least a few million years of separate evolution. Dolphins do not. You must have read that they share "many" of the same chromosomes, and somehow wrongly figured that means just as many as a chimpanzee.
Of course "somehow" is your preconceived belief filter; you probably just read the headline about dolphins and jumped to whatever conclusion helped "prove" to yourself that evolution is bullshit. You're desperately trying to drive a wedge between demonstrable fact and a theory you have an issue with, but all that wedge is doing is demonstrating the gaps in your own knowledge and reasoning ability.
Actually that is false. Micro-evolution is accepted more or less as described - minor changes the same species while Macro-evolution is defined as one species changing into another species - e.g. monkey evolving into homosapien. Macro-evolution has not been proven in a lab; only Micro-evolution.
Speciation has been proven in a lab. That's "macro-evolution", one (subset of a) species turning into another, though of course the mechanism itself is micro-evolution, because again there's no actual difference. Speciation is how we branched off from our common ancestor with the apes (which was not a monkey, please tell me that was a joke making fun of those who criticize evolution while being completely clueless of it).
So then the only thing you're left to have a problem with is that we're also quite different from that distant ancestor. But we don't need "macro-evolution" to explain this. Many minor changes over many generations results in large changes. Which is even what the fossil record shows -- over time our ancestors became less like the ancient ape and more like us.
Looking only at the end-points, you see "macro-evolution". But in between, there's nothing but micro-evolution.
Do you accept micro-evolution or not? Or do you just not understand how small changes can add up to large ones? There's no option where you accept lab-demonstrated fact, understand how evolution works, and reject speciation.
So which is it?
You're missing the entire point of the article. The problem is in practice the average person is entirely incapable of testing many scientific hypotheses, let alone understanding the reasoning behind them and their ramifications. Yes, in theory, if I spent 7 years getting a doctorate in physics, I could be seeing and understanding actual evidence. Otherwise, I'm just taking everything on faith. It does me no good if a hypothesis is testable in theory. Priests can just as well tell me that they're able to replicate miracles all the time for all the difference it makes to me.
That's what the article is talking about? Well then that's just bullshit abuse of semantics. That's not even close to the same kind of faith, and I say that as someone who has actual spiritual, religious faith. The "faith" in science is what I'd call "trust".
Yes, of course I have not actually tested nor am capable of testing many things in science which I believe are true. Yes, I am taking the word of a scientist (or someone who took the word of a scientist, etc) and believing it without direct evidence. However I also believe that the evidence exists, that the scientist is basing their statements on experimental evidence as one would expect from science. I trust the scientist. I trust the professor.
Also, because this is regular everyday trust in a human being, I know that first my trust in any particular authority could be misplaced, and second even if the scientist is trustworthy, new evidence could come along and the thing I believed yesterday could turn out to be false. In fact there are certainly things which I believe which have been known to be false for quite a while but it was simply never communicated to me. And that's all okay.
I do not believe that the Minister of my church or any other religious authority anywhere has sat down and worked out a rigorous proof that Jesus Loves Me This I Know. I have faith that Jesus loves me. Actual, true faith. If my Minister turns out to be untrustworthy, that doesn't affect my faith. If he or another authority abandons the church and declares that God doesn't exist, that doesn't affect my faith. Because my faith was never predicated on the belief that there exists proof. I know it doesn't.
These are completely different ways of "believing" in something.
Is that the whole problem? That people really can't distinguish between the kind of trust you have that your architect's blueprints are based on sound engineering, and the trust you have that your prayers will be answered? Ergo science equals religion? If true, it's no wonder we're in such a mess.
No, that's not necessarily true. That's an assumption, and one rather largely unproven. Thereby, it's not demonstrable and is therefore faith, not science.
No, it is necessarily true. If a species is somehow separated into two populations, and one or both of those populations undergoes micro-evolutionary changes that cause it to be unable (or unwilling in the case of sexual selection) to breed with the other, then that's macro-evolution right there. They will no longer share genetic information, and any further "micro"-evolutionary changes will continue to cause the two populations -- now two species -- to diverge.
And yes, we have seen exactly this in labs.
Micro- vs macro- evolution is a red herring, a canard. There is no actual difference. The mechanism is exactly the same. You can't say you're okay with one and not the other. That's just a trick to be able to say you don't believe in (macro-)evolution, yet still appear connected to reality. But it doesn't work.
Although you are mostly correct, I feel just pedantic enough to point out that central nervous system depression is nothing at all like psychological depression, you may as well be comparing psychological depression to a tropical depression.
And chronically depressed people should avoid hurricanes! See, it fits.
There's a good reason they aren't touting it. Turns out that making logic gates that can sense 8 different voltage levels is much more complicated, area-intensive, and slower than just being able to slam the output to one of the voltage rails as hard as you want/need. They tried and tried, but it was a dog all around.
Then came the real breakthrough -- the realization that you can encode the 8 states in octal using 3 normal binary signals, and so simulate an octal circuit, only faster and smaller!
But then calling it an "octal" chip seemed kinda silly, so they have mostly been keeping quiet about it and letting people think it had to do with the number of cores in certain platforms.
That's exactly what I'm on about -- you using "deserving" to take the whole issue of suspects where a taser or other violent takedown isn't required, but the existence of such a less-lethal weapon encourages its use, and sweep it under the rug. Yes, in the context of a situation where it is unambiguously the case that for their own and public safety the police must use one of either a club, taser, or gun, the taser is probably better. That doesn't actually justify the danger of a taser, because in reality the set of situations where that is the case is a small subset of the total uses of tasers, and the set of situations in which each of those options would be used if they were the only tool at hand are not the equivalent. The only question that matters is whether the danger is justifiable in the situations in which it is actually used.
It's similar to talking about contraceptives, and saying that "coitus interruptus" is 96% effective. Under perfect circumstances, when it's one of the hardest methods to use "perfectly". Under typical, real-world circumstances, you should start painting the baby's room if you rely on this method. It's not exactly the same, since we're not talking efficacy, but rather situations in which a taser might be used that aren't ideal and can increase risk to the suspect. But the point is the same: framing the debate in terms of ideal circumstances to say they aren't unsafe is unrealistic and begging the question.
Long story short, it's just a more subtle version of the "It's better than being shot!" argument, which is a terrible argument.
The fact of the matter is that, with proper training and handling, a Taser device, when used in its intended setting against a deserving individual, is far safer to innocent bystanders, the environment, public safety personnel, and in most cases the suspects themselves than any other incapacitation method that I've ever heard of.
What I don't understand is how the target "deserving" to be tasered affects the safety of the taser in a manner similar to proper training, proper handling, and use in an intended setting which are listed in parallel.
Am I supposed to infer that if the target isn't deserving that it's (somehow) not as safe? That doesn't sound like a plus to me!
Or was the part about "deserving" just thrown in there so that I wouldn't care so much about the cases where tasers are not safer for suspects, because hey, this hypothetical suspect hypothetically deserved it and hey why not just assume that means real suspects harmed by tasers deserved it too?
Inquiring minds want to know.
I think it'd be a pretty good joke if for April 1st, The Onion only had accurate, serious coverage of real stories.
What about a Dyson Bison, a spherical-shell-shaped bison with a star in the center?
My S.O. got health coverage with a pre-existing condition.
My mother was able to get Medicare benefits when she was previously in the "gap".
So far, so good.
The quote covers both voting directly on policies (Direct Democracy) and voting for representatives (Representative Democracy), both of which are kinds of democracy, with our democracy being the latter. So, awareness of our country being a Democratic Republic would be irrelevant if you're aware of what those terms mean.
Hell, they had a demo unit in freaking Target when I went in there the other day.
Though with the console bolted down it was a pain in the ass to put my head at the right angle to see the 3d clearly (and to *not* be able to see both images with both eyes and make my eyes want to cross). The effect was neat, though it seemed like it'd need careful tuning to keep from causing headaches. Kinda funny how there are people simply turning the 3D off. Well as long as they still enjoy it.
I think the thing is too expensive even with 3D, no way i'd buy it if I thought I was just going to turn off the thing that made it so expensive. Then again, I haven't bought any of the more reasonably priced portables either. So my opinion is kinda irrelevant. :P