Nothing you just said negated his point that anyone making gun control an issue is wasting effort because it is a statistically insignificant concern in terms of damage while most people want to retain their weaponry.
The whole argument about small arms being ineffective against a modern military also become utterly preposterous after those same kind of small arms and improvised arms were very effective at doing exactly that in Iraq... even better, it was the SAME modern military.
I don't think this is anybody's politics. The same people who are blinded enough by partisanship and emotional outrage to be okay with this are completely against the kind the privacy violation and discrimination this represents the rest of the week.
Right now two opposing sides of the gun ownership issue have been whipped up into a frenzy and are foaming at the mouth, snarling and snapping at each other. They are so blinded by emotion they are failing to see that is something decidedly unethical. Lets publish lists of people who applied for religious non-profits in black communities yet. Those who've applied for same sex marriage licenses. Anyone with former military or martial arts training (since they are lethal weapons and all) let's put them up. It was wrong for a government agency to release this private data. It was unethical and immoral of a news agency to publish it. And it is unthinkable for anyone who has dared to claim to support privacy to condone it no matter what their views on gun control.
Publishing a hit list of innocent citizens for extremists on your side of the political lines to target. Yes that is evil. It doesn't matter what your political lines are.
Dude just killed 20 with a knife in China. Where is the knife database?
There are least two dozen things in my home that can be hazardous to others that you could never outlaw or list in a database. Start punishing criminals and stop punishing tools criminals can potentially use. Outlawing things and making more actions that can potentially lead to crimes into crimes of their own doesn't make society any better. Having a smaller number of illegal activities that are actually harmful and punishing offenders severely is a far better strategy and one that leaves the law abiding citizen the most leeway.
I'm done pussy footing around it. Stop trampling on my rights, stop taking my shit away, stop telling me what to drink/smoke/ingest/snort, and stop invading my privacy. Fuck off already. R's and D's take your pick you are all invading my space somewhere on this list. You can all fuck off. Leave me the hell alone and I promise, I'll do the same.
"Cars, businesses, professional licenses, etc. are all public (in one form or another) and searchable (in one form or another)."
First you shouldn't need a permit to own a firearm. Second, has it occurred to you the problem might be that these things are all made public and searchable? Lots of information registered with the feds is redacted and exempt from FOIA requests. Your tax data is an example of this. Everything you mentioned above should fall in this category as well. Pretty much all public uses of this data are abuses and yes I include debt collectors and private investigators using this data.
Government agencies should not release the details of private citizens, period.
You could just skip the list and do the same. Everyone who isn't disqualified due to mental health issues should have a gun and at least a NRA safety course on how to use it. A handgun is good for concealed carry purposes but for general use the same kind of semi-automatic weapons they are trying to outlaw now are among the best. A semi-automatic hunting rifle isn't much different than the typical semi-auto AK-47 in the US (in military use AK-47's are select fire or fully automatic). One just looks more scary and falls into an imaginary category of guns with no defining characteristic but appearance called "assault weapons" or "assault rifles."
Aside from a few exceptions with old permits actual military grade arms are already kept away from the public in the US. A rifle is a rifle. The key difference in small arms is that military arms used to fire automatic (think machine guns) and these days are more often used in a burst fire mode (flings a few shots with a single pull but doesn't empty out a whole clip wasting all your ammunition). It is highly debatable if it is actually beneficial to keep this out of the hands of the public.
And you'd feel the same way if they'd gotten a list of everyone who put a domestic partner on their insurance policy and published their name/address/phone number and put it on a google maps style database?
Yes they just published the list and the lion share of blame for any subsequent crime goes to the person who commits it but they aren't exactly completely blameless here. The list may well facilitate crime. This isn't whistleblowing on government or business. This is disclosing a bunch of confidential information about private citizens that no government agency should have released in the first place. And they are doing so for no other purpose than to incite controversy. Once they got the data I support their right to publish it but just because they have a legal right does not mean they have a moral or ethical right. Publishing this list is unethical, immoral, and just bad form.
Having the right to speak doesn't make your speech moral or ethical and your right to speech here in no way conflicts with my right to privacy. Government agencies have no right to disclose the details of private citizens. The potential for an unethical and immoral publishing of those details under justification of the first amendment only occurs if the government first violates my right.
In other words, there is nothing coherent or logical in his argument which somehow implied a conflict between the first and second amendment, neither of which are the issue here. Leaving only his insult.
I actually had a candid debate on this very topic yesterday. Basically the general consensus was that while it is true that we don't have easy enough access to mental health care in this country no amount of mental healthcare is going to stop the emergence of crazies. As we see in China, outlawing weapons just moves the issue to knives or worse IEDs and you can never outlaw either of those (effectively). So there is something very valid in the claim that "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." Plus there was a case of an armed guard stopping a shooting incident at a school a couple weeks before this last killing and there was a similar incident with a guard shooting a man who held the school board here in Albuquerque at gun point. Good guys with guns worked there.
The question then becomes, arm the teachers or use armed police. Teachers aren't qualified and can also be mentally unstable. Police MIGHT be stable but having police walking the halls desensitizes our youth to a police state type environment and some of us aren't okay with that. Plus, it would probably come alongside TSA like checkpoints in the schools which is worthless in airports and will be even worse at schools.
The final consensus? Based on the student population you require a number of "safety officers" these are designated teachers who have been trained, and possibly are considered voluntary police. Let the schools decide internally who to designate. Give them training, radios, guns, and a few bucks more in pay. Then wire the schools so that teachers desks have an alarm button much like bank tellers do. Hitting the button would trigger an alert calling out the emergency and classroom to all the safety officer radios.
You'd think so but I highly doubt it. For one you can legally sell guns person to person without keeping records only dealers have to keep records. Also if you file the serial number off there really is no reason to report it stolen because it isn't going to appear elsewhere. The whole ballistics fingerprint thing is much more limited than CSI would lead you to believe and even if it weren't the police don't magically obtain a ballistics fingerprint from your gun to compare to.
The comparison is apt but for the opposite reason. They are both cases where government is revealing the details of private citizens and the government should redact that data from all information requests. Yes, that includes the data of FORMER criminals. Applying a stigma on someone for life or even beyond their term of punishment qualifies as cruel and unusual punishment. Records of previous criminal offenses should be sealed to the court at any age not just when you are a minor.
And you honestly think that trumps the right to privacy of millions of law abiding citizens? Seriously, set aside the partisian politics BS for a moment. This isn't a gun issue it is a privacy issue. What if this were a list of medical marijuana patients or people who applied for domestic partner insurance or insert random list of people who have their details in a data somewhere they thought was confidential.
Shame on whichever agency released this data and shame on the ones who built a database from the private details of citizens. Government agencies should be screening the personal details of citizens from all information act requests on any topic.
This information is private data and should have been excluded from FOIA requests along with every other piece of federal data that includes the details of individual citizens. Yes, that includes the details of sex offenders imho but unlike gun owners sex offenders are considered (by courts not me) to have given up rights when they broke the law.
Abusing holes opened up by the FOIA and government agencies doing a poor job of recognizing sensitive data is not exactly a noble and moral act.
It makes sense. Generally that is when we use 3D in a utilitarian sense. We are mostly able to derive depth information at a distance in a 2D using clues like relative size and it only for up close fine tasks that we need the precision of true visual 3D depth data.
I have no idea what parts of Transformers 3 you might have worked on but I own that film on 3D Bluray and the 3D is quite nice for most of the film. There are still a few flickery parts though. I think a big part of it is that film makers like to focus a character in the foreground and put the background out of focus for artistic effect. But anything out of focus in 3D flickers. Possibly because digital blur, or digital compression of something blurry isn't going to match in the two opposing frames. I can only speculate but it is possible to keep the full frame in focus and that makes the flickering go away or it has in the films I've seen that are made that way or have shots done that way.
I think people get headaches for different reasons. One is that they have glasses and no second lens is ever quite right over the top of glasses. The second is the focus of the film. The out of focus background objects flicker and cause headaches if you look at them during the film. Film makers can actually have the entire frame in focus (I think I was once told this was called "focus to infinity") so I wish they would stop doing this the eye is drawn to the larger figure at the front of the frame and blurring the background doesn't enhance that so the artistic gain is actually null. The third is the frame rate. The hobbit showed a significantly smoother 3D image than I've seen before and I give no small part of the credit to 48fps but this may have been as much or more creditable to the focus to infinity used through most of the film. I think it would be better yet at 75 fps and for 3D content we might find the upper framerate bounds are higher than the 75fps that is the highest we perceive in 2D.
Then you don't have two correctly functioning eyes. Or you are mistaken.
3D isn't and isn't supposed to be like the cheap 3D effects seen at the theater when they throw something at you or you get from those pictures you cross your eyes to see. It is far more subtle than that. If you really can't see 3D at all it would mean you have no depth perception and that would cause serious problems in life. If you can say catch something thrown at you, then you are mistaken.
It is sort of like old SD images before there were HD for us to compare them to. People have been so conditioned to look at 2D images they have trouble seeing it.
One good way is to take a large rectangular object like a flat screen monitor and put it on a 25 degree angle from the wall and then put a second tall object (maybe a pc speaker) behind it and then position yourself on the open side of the angle facing directly onto the corner edge of the monitor. Depth should be reasonably pronounced in this view and the difference from one eye and two should jump out more.
Another even easier one is to extend your arm out in front of you and turn your hand back toward your face and curl your fingertips toward you. Think Jim Carey's "The Claw" on liar liar. Then compare with one eye vs two. The effect is subtle, it is supposed to be. But once you notice it consciously and know the visual effect you are looking for, it is literally everywhere.
2 sometimes happens to me and it is the fault of the filmmakers. Apparently there isn't any actual need to have objects in the frame out of focus anymore so all those headaches caused by flickering in the blurry background are completely unnecessary. It's another thing they did right in the hobbit.
Supposedly the point at which you can't perceive a difference anymore is around 75fps, beyond that the framerate is faster than us. This certainly seems to be true with games. I'm not sure why they aren't going there. Unless the studios are just trying to milk the fps increase thing for what it's worth getting kickbacks from hardware manufacturers (or in the case of the biggest of them, Sony, BE the hardware manufacturer). Go 48fps, 48fps tv's and such, and then go 75fps to make everyone upgrade.
As I said I didn't notice any flicker but I don't think it was all the fps. The whole movie was shot in a way that everything was in focus, the background and the characters in the forefront. I used to think that was just how focus had to work but apparently some artistic ninnys actually think there it is desirable to have background objects out of focus at points. Those blury out of focus background objects then to be where I see the most 3D flicker. I suspect it is in no small part because that is where digital compression is likely to create artifacts on 3D due to the result of applying compression to the different perspectives causing small changes in the blur on the opposing frames that are highlighted in 3D and wouldn't be visible in 2D.
At some point in the midst of this 3D stuff I had LASIK and no longer wear glasses. I felt very differently about 3D when I wore glasses. Without them it is quite nice and the hobbit was a pinnacle of that. Of course I could never get a full experience from microscopes, telescopes, binoculars or anything else with a lens with glasses either.
I can't understand why people with glasses and eye problems continue going to 3D movies. Just watch the 2D version and let those of us who can enjoy 3D do so. Is there really cause to wish for the downfall of 3D just because you personally can't enjoy it?
Saying that high resolution, fps, and 3D don't belong in a drama is like saying a high quality sound system is only appropriate for rock and hip hop and what is the point of using one to play Mozart. The problem with 3D isn't that it is a gimmick it is that it's been marketed as one and it is a relatively poor gimmick. It isn't some stunt to deliver better graphics. Watching a movie in 2D vs 3D is like watching a play vs watching a movie. You are suspending belief which is fine and there is content worth suspending belief to consume. But I'd rather not have to and that same content would be enhanced if I didn't have to. Close one eye. It isn't a horrible view of the world but it isn't what things look like. For the most part you don't notice the world is 3D vs 2D and things aren't jumping out at you all the time. In most cases the difference is subtle. But it is there and there is no content that isn't more enjoyable looking the way it is supposed to.
Just because something isn't flashy doesn't mean the experience isn't enhanced by a high quality image, at high fps (subconsciously you see the flicker on 2D too and it tires your eyes), and 3D. The entire point of a movie is the same as a book. To escape into an alternate reality for just a bit. Look around you. Anything less three dimensional, lower resolution, at a lower frame rate, or with a lower quality of audio is less immersive. The closer a drama hits on these points, the more you feel the moment and the more dramatic it is. The more in the moment I am, the more hilarious the comedy.
Is it more dramatic when a jewelry box is opened to reveal cut glass or the sparkle of a diamond? The visual impact has a dramatic impact quite aside from the monetary one. Why would dramatic film be any different?
If the hobbit is any indication 48fps is the best thing to ever happen to stereoscopic 3D. 100% flicker and headache free. The image was at least as smooth and easy on the eyes as any 2D content I've seen.
"When do you ever want all of your February things from multiple years grouped together?"
"More often than you want things from the same year grouped together?"
I agree but that is just it you don't merely want them grouped you generally don't want other years besides the current to be displayed at all. Other years are normally filtered out (in some solid way such as put away in a closet for paper or moved to an archive for digital). It should be safe to say that if I'm looking at something from February on a day to day basis it is THIS February. The year shouldn't typically be relevant to my mental process so it is the last piece of data I want to see in the date. For current information, the piece of data I am usually concerned with is the month with the day and time as drill down data. The year gets tacked on to the end almost as an error check.
I think working with the current year is a typical usage scenario and for everyone working this way it is most efficient to mentally parse mm/dd/yyyy and see this reflected in the often used shorthand of mm/dd.
For someone who is typically parsing multiple years of data on a daily basis yyyy/mm/dd definitely does make the most sense and while I think this is less common there are certainly no shortage of people who have this work flow. I can't think there are many work cases where dd/mm/yyyy would be all that beneficial. Even if you are hyper sensitive to the day time frame months wrap around so often that you are going to be concerned with the starts and ends of other months too often to be looking at day before month.
The rest of us have near roughly the same amount of gray matter to work with and can't instantly dismiss either the nature or nurture side of the debate. fyngyrz is obviously packing substantially more and has no time for the discussion.
He keeps dropping vague references implying something in the world of genetics is going to magically cure all ignorance but hasn't provided so much as a premise. It's too bad. I was looking forward to hearing what it was.
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing you just said negated his point that anyone making gun control an issue is wasting effort because it is a statistically insignificant concern in terms of damage while most people want to retain their weaponry.
The whole argument about small arms being ineffective against a modern military also become utterly preposterous after those same kind of small arms and improvised arms were very effective at doing exactly that in Iraq... even better, it was the SAME modern military.
I don't think this is anybody's politics. The same people who are blinded enough by partisanship and emotional outrage to be okay with this are completely against the kind the privacy violation and discrimination this represents the rest of the week.
Right now two opposing sides of the gun ownership issue have been whipped up into a frenzy and are foaming at the mouth, snarling and snapping at each other. They are so blinded by emotion they are failing to see that is something decidedly unethical. Lets publish lists of people who applied for religious non-profits in black communities yet. Those who've applied for same sex marriage licenses. Anyone with former military or martial arts training (since they are lethal weapons and all) let's put them up. It was wrong for a government agency to release this private data. It was unethical and immoral of a news agency to publish it. And it is unthinkable for anyone who has dared to claim to support privacy to condone it no matter what their views on gun control.
Publishing a hit list of innocent citizens for extremists on your side of the political lines to target. Yes that is evil. It doesn't matter what your political lines are.
That would depend on the disease. In America we most certainly do quarantine all detected carriers of some diseases.
Dude just killed 20 with a knife in China. Where is the knife database?
There are least two dozen things in my home that can be hazardous to others that you could never outlaw or list in a database. Start punishing criminals and stop punishing tools criminals can potentially use. Outlawing things and making more actions that can potentially lead to crimes into crimes of their own doesn't make society any better. Having a smaller number of illegal activities that are actually harmful and punishing offenders severely is a far better strategy and one that leaves the law abiding citizen the most leeway.
I'm done pussy footing around it. Stop trampling on my rights, stop taking my shit away, stop telling me what to drink/smoke/ingest/snort, and stop invading my privacy. Fuck off already. R's and D's take your pick you are all invading my space somewhere on this list. You can all fuck off. Leave me the hell alone and I promise, I'll do the same.
"Cars, businesses, professional licenses, etc. are all public (in one form or another) and searchable (in one form or another)."
First you shouldn't need a permit to own a firearm. Second, has it occurred to you the problem might be that these things are all made public and searchable? Lots of information registered with the feds is redacted and exempt from FOIA requests. Your tax data is an example of this. Everything you mentioned above should fall in this category as well. Pretty much all public uses of this data are abuses and yes I include debt collectors and private investigators using this data.
Government agencies should not release the details of private citizens, period.
You could just skip the list and do the same. Everyone who isn't disqualified due to mental health issues should have a gun and at least a NRA safety course on how to use it. A handgun is good for concealed carry purposes but for general use the same kind of semi-automatic weapons they are trying to outlaw now are among the best. A semi-automatic hunting rifle isn't much different than the typical semi-auto AK-47 in the US (in military use AK-47's are select fire or fully automatic). One just looks more scary and falls into an imaginary category of guns with no defining characteristic but appearance called "assault weapons" or "assault rifles."
Aside from a few exceptions with old permits actual military grade arms are already kept away from the public in the US. A rifle is a rifle. The key difference in small arms is that military arms used to fire automatic (think machine guns) and these days are more often used in a burst fire mode (flings a few shots with a single pull but doesn't empty out a whole clip wasting all your ammunition). It is highly debatable if it is actually beneficial to keep this out of the hands of the public.
And you'd feel the same way if they'd gotten a list of everyone who put a domestic partner on their insurance policy and published their name/address/phone number and put it on a google maps style database?
Yes they just published the list and the lion share of blame for any subsequent crime goes to the person who commits it but they aren't exactly completely blameless here. The list may well facilitate crime. This isn't whistleblowing on government or business. This is disclosing a bunch of confidential information about private citizens that no government agency should have released in the first place. And they are doing so for no other purpose than to incite controversy. Once they got the data I support their right to publish it but just because they have a legal right does not mean they have a moral or ethical right. Publishing this list is unethical, immoral, and just bad form.
You had a good argument there but just couldn't resist losing all credibility by throwing in a bit of partisan nonsense about liberals at the end?
Having the right to speak doesn't make your speech moral or ethical and your right to speech here in no way conflicts with my right to privacy. Government agencies have no right to disclose the details of private citizens. The potential for an unethical and immoral publishing of those details under justification of the first amendment only occurs if the government first violates my right.
In other words, there is nothing coherent or logical in his argument which somehow implied a conflict between the first and second amendment, neither of which are the issue here. Leaving only his insult.
I actually had a candid debate on this very topic yesterday. Basically the general consensus was that while it is true that we don't have easy enough access to mental health care in this country no amount of mental healthcare is going to stop the emergence of crazies. As we see in China, outlawing weapons just moves the issue to knives or worse IEDs and you can never outlaw either of those (effectively). So there is something very valid in the claim that "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." Plus there was a case of an armed guard stopping a shooting incident at a school a couple weeks before this last killing and there was a similar incident with a guard shooting a man who held the school board here in Albuquerque at gun point. Good guys with guns worked there.
The question then becomes, arm the teachers or use armed police. Teachers aren't qualified and can also be mentally unstable. Police MIGHT be stable but having police walking the halls desensitizes our youth to a police state type environment and some of us aren't okay with that. Plus, it would probably come alongside TSA like checkpoints in the schools which is worthless in airports and will be even worse at schools.
The final consensus? Based on the student population you require a number of "safety officers" these are designated teachers who have been trained, and possibly are considered voluntary police. Let the schools decide internally who to designate. Give them training, radios, guns, and a few bucks more in pay. Then wire the schools so that teachers desks have an alarm button much like bank tellers do. Hitting the button would trigger an alert calling out the emergency and classroom to all the safety officer radios.
You'd think so but I highly doubt it. For one you can legally sell guns person to person without keeping records only dealers have to keep records. Also if you file the serial number off there really is no reason to report it stolen because it isn't going to appear elsewhere. The whole ballistics fingerprint thing is much more limited than CSI would lead you to believe and even if it weren't the police don't magically obtain a ballistics fingerprint from your gun to compare to.
The comparison is apt but for the opposite reason. They are both cases where government is revealing the details of private citizens and the government should redact that data from all information requests. Yes, that includes the data of FORMER criminals. Applying a stigma on someone for life or even beyond their term of punishment qualifies as cruel and unusual punishment. Records of previous criminal offenses should be sealed to the court at any age not just when you are a minor.
And you honestly think that trumps the right to privacy of millions of law abiding citizens? Seriously, set aside the partisian politics BS for a moment. This isn't a gun issue it is a privacy issue. What if this were a list of medical marijuana patients or people who applied for domestic partner insurance or insert random list of people who have their details in a data somewhere they thought was confidential.
Shame on whichever agency released this data and shame on the ones who built a database from the private details of citizens. Government agencies should be screening the personal details of citizens from all information act requests on any topic.
This information is private data and should have been excluded from FOIA requests along with every other piece of federal data that includes the details of individual citizens. Yes, that includes the details of sex offenders imho but unlike gun owners sex offenders are considered (by courts not me) to have given up rights when they broke the law.
Abusing holes opened up by the FOIA and government agencies doing a poor job of recognizing sensitive data is not exactly a noble and moral act.
It makes sense. Generally that is when we use 3D in a utilitarian sense. We are mostly able to derive depth information at a distance in a 2D using clues like relative size and it only for up close fine tasks that we need the precision of true visual 3D depth data.
I have no idea what parts of Transformers 3 you might have worked on but I own that film on 3D Bluray and the 3D is quite nice for most of the film. There are still a few flickery parts though. I think a big part of it is that film makers like to focus a character in the foreground and put the background out of focus for artistic effect. But anything out of focus in 3D flickers. Possibly because digital blur, or digital compression of something blurry isn't going to match in the two opposing frames. I can only speculate but it is possible to keep the full frame in focus and that makes the flickering go away or it has in the films I've seen that are made that way or have shots done that way.
In summary, we need more 3D porn. tyvm.
Hopefully it isn't going away in the first place.
I think people get headaches for different reasons. One is that they have glasses and no second lens is ever quite right over the top of glasses. The second is the focus of the film. The out of focus background objects flicker and cause headaches if you look at them during the film. Film makers can actually have the entire frame in focus (I think I was once told this was called "focus to infinity") so I wish they would stop doing this the eye is drawn to the larger figure at the front of the frame and blurring the background doesn't enhance that so the artistic gain is actually null. The third is the frame rate. The hobbit showed a significantly smoother 3D image than I've seen before and I give no small part of the credit to 48fps but this may have been as much or more creditable to the focus to infinity used through most of the film. I think it would be better yet at 75 fps and for 3D content we might find the upper framerate bounds are higher than the 75fps that is the highest we perceive in 2D.
Then you don't have two correctly functioning eyes. Or you are mistaken.
3D isn't and isn't supposed to be like the cheap 3D effects seen at the theater when they throw something at you or you get from those pictures you cross your eyes to see. It is far more subtle than that. If you really can't see 3D at all it would mean you have no depth perception and that would cause serious problems in life. If you can say catch something thrown at you, then you are mistaken.
It is sort of like old SD images before there were HD for us to compare them to. People have been so conditioned to look at 2D images they have trouble seeing it.
One good way is to take a large rectangular object like a flat screen monitor and put it on a 25 degree angle from the wall and then put a second tall object (maybe a pc speaker) behind it and then position yourself on the open side of the angle facing directly onto the corner edge of the monitor. Depth should be reasonably pronounced in this view and the difference from one eye and two should jump out more.
Another even easier one is to extend your arm out in front of you and turn your hand back toward your face and curl your fingertips toward you. Think Jim Carey's "The Claw" on liar liar. Then compare with one eye vs two. The effect is subtle, it is supposed to be. But once you notice it consciously and know the visual effect you are looking for, it is literally everywhere.
2 sometimes happens to me and it is the fault of the filmmakers. Apparently there isn't any actual need to have objects in the frame out of focus anymore so all those headaches caused by flickering in the blurry background are completely unnecessary. It's another thing they did right in the hobbit.
Supposedly the point at which you can't perceive a difference anymore is around 75fps, beyond that the framerate is faster than us. This certainly seems to be true with games. I'm not sure why they aren't going there. Unless the studios are just trying to milk the fps increase thing for what it's worth getting kickbacks from hardware manufacturers (or in the case of the biggest of them, Sony, BE the hardware manufacturer). Go 48fps, 48fps tv's and such, and then go 75fps to make everyone upgrade.
As I said I didn't notice any flicker but I don't think it was all the fps. The whole movie was shot in a way that everything was in focus, the background and the characters in the forefront. I used to think that was just how focus had to work but apparently some artistic ninnys actually think there it is desirable to have background objects out of focus at points. Those blury out of focus background objects then to be where I see the most 3D flicker. I suspect it is in no small part because that is where digital compression is likely to create artifacts on 3D due to the result of applying compression to the different perspectives causing small changes in the blur on the opposing frames that are highlighted in 3D and wouldn't be visible in 2D.
At some point in the midst of this 3D stuff I had LASIK and no longer wear glasses. I felt very differently about 3D when I wore glasses. Without them it is quite nice and the hobbit was a pinnacle of that. Of course I could never get a full experience from microscopes, telescopes, binoculars or anything else with a lens with glasses either.
I can't understand why people with glasses and eye problems continue going to 3D movies. Just watch the 2D version and let those of us who can enjoy 3D do so. Is there really cause to wish for the downfall of 3D just because you personally can't enjoy it?
Saying that high resolution, fps, and 3D don't belong in a drama is like saying a high quality sound system is only appropriate for rock and hip hop and what is the point of using one to play Mozart. The problem with 3D isn't that it is a gimmick it is that it's been marketed as one and it is a relatively poor gimmick. It isn't some stunt to deliver better graphics. Watching a movie in 2D vs 3D is like watching a play vs watching a movie. You are suspending belief which is fine and there is content worth suspending belief to consume. But I'd rather not have to and that same content would be enhanced if I didn't have to. Close one eye. It isn't a horrible view of the world but it isn't what things look like. For the most part you don't notice the world is 3D vs 2D and things aren't jumping out at you all the time. In most cases the difference is subtle. But it is there and there is no content that isn't more enjoyable looking the way it is supposed to.
Just because something isn't flashy doesn't mean the experience isn't enhanced by a high quality image, at high fps (subconsciously you see the flicker on 2D too and it tires your eyes), and 3D. The entire point of a movie is the same as a book. To escape into an alternate reality for just a bit. Look around you. Anything less three dimensional, lower resolution, at a lower frame rate, or with a lower quality of audio is less immersive. The closer a drama hits on these points, the more you feel the moment and the more dramatic it is. The more in the moment I am, the more hilarious the comedy.
Is it more dramatic when a jewelry box is opened to reveal cut glass or the sparkle of a diamond? The visual impact has a dramatic impact quite aside from the monetary one. Why would dramatic film be any different?
If the hobbit is any indication 48fps is the best thing to ever happen to stereoscopic 3D. 100% flicker and headache free. The image was at least as smooth and easy on the eyes as any 2D content I've seen.
"When do you ever want all of your February things from multiple years grouped together?"
"More often than you want things from the same year grouped together?"
I agree but that is just it you don't merely want them grouped you generally don't want other years besides the current to be displayed at all. Other years are normally filtered out (in some solid way such as put away in a closet for paper or moved to an archive for digital). It should be safe to say that if I'm looking at something from February on a day to day basis it is THIS February. The year shouldn't typically be relevant to my mental process so it is the last piece of data I want to see in the date. For current information, the piece of data I am usually concerned with is the month with the day and time as drill down data. The year gets tacked on to the end almost as an error check.
I think working with the current year is a typical usage scenario and for everyone working this way it is most efficient to mentally parse mm/dd/yyyy and see this reflected in the often used shorthand of mm/dd.
For someone who is typically parsing multiple years of data on a daily basis yyyy/mm/dd definitely does make the most sense and while I think this is less common there are certainly no shortage of people who have this work flow. I can't think there are many work cases where dd/mm/yyyy would be all that beneficial. Even if you are hyper sensitive to the day time frame months wrap around so often that you are going to be concerned with the starts and ends of other months too often to be looking at day before month.
The rest of us have near roughly the same amount of gray matter to work with and can't instantly dismiss either the nature or nurture side of the debate. fyngyrz is obviously packing substantially more and has no time for the discussion.
He keeps dropping vague references implying something in the world of genetics is going to magically cure all ignorance but hasn't provided so much as a premise. It's too bad. I was looking forward to hearing what it was.
"Since you have no idea what you're talking about, we'll just agree to disagree."
That is a rather bold assumption. You got that after hearing nothing more than that I tend to lean toward the nurture camp?