Because you need a screen that will reflect the light back in a polarized fashion. In film terms, you're talking about a screen with silver crystals in it for reflectivity. But those screens are enormously fragile - which is part of why 3-D keeps flopping over in theaters - if one person throws their drink at the screen, or even touches it, the screen is wrecked for good and needs to be replaced.
That's not technology suitable for home usage. Which is why home systems have always been based on field sequential systems of 3-D.
I'm surprised that the only engine on this list to derive from the Quake family is the Call of Duty engine. I'm not enough of a game engine expert to disagree with any given choice, but it's very, very surprising to me to see one of the major families of engines basically ignored. At the very least, some discussion of its omission seems in order.
I advise caution in believing this story. ProtesterHelp, earlier today, was spreading false information that Mousavi had been arrested on Twitter. The combination makes me suspect attention whoring in lieu of truth.
Oh. Maybe the parent comment was referring to that. But through the 80s, Disney also had a practice of doing theatrical re-releases of its classic animated films - they stopped in favor of home release. Similar practices, but I took re-release to mean theatrical release.
To be fair, by most accounts Disney has improved over the last year or two. Yes, the era where Home on the Range and Brother Bear were coming out was a bit of a trainwreck. But their most recent animated film, Bolt, did appreciable business and was generally well received. And the buzz they're getting for The Princess and the Frog, their return to traditional animation, is significant. Rapunzel is also getting generally good buzz.
The general sense seems to be that Disney bought Pixar in a large part to get John Lasseter to work on all of their films. And that he's been turning the ship around.
Yes, all right, i was (perhaps unfairly) assuming that the comparison was being made between Disney's animated films and Pixar's films. If we are claiming that Monsters Inc 2 is an example of Pixar being more like Kill Bill, then let me be the first to say "oh hell yes."
First of all, Pixar has two announced films not mentioned here - The Bear and the Bow and Newt - both of which are original properties. Bear and the Bow is slated to share 2011 with Cars 2, and Newt is set for 2012.
Second of all, the suggestion that the "most likely" date for Monsters Inc 2 is 2012 is tenuous at best. The only time in the last decade Pixar has had a director do two films with only three years in between is when Brad Bird did Ratatouille three years after The Incredibles, and that was him coming on a film in mid-production. If Docter is directing it, it would be surprising to see it before 2013.
This story, in other words, is nonsense - the only actual content to it is that there's a sequel to Monsters Inc.
Return to Zork is hardly a venerable game. It was a rather poor adventure game for the era, with at least one extremely counter-intuitive puzzle, as well as a error you can make very early in the game that renders it unbeatable, and gives you no clue that you've made an error when you make the mistake.
Zork: Grand Inquisitor, the third of Activision's 90s Zork games, was the lone one of that set that can be fairly called Venerable.
Eh. I think that puts too high a bar. Generally speaking, if someone is slandering me, I'd rather just find a way to stop the slander than to have an obligation to seek damages. Which is, to my mind, the major advantage of something like the DMCA. Frankly, DMCA takedown notices are vastly superior to actually having lawsuits for damages at every single case of infringement. Now I'm all for reform and a system whereby spurious notices can be treated as the harassment they are. But on the other hand, a system in place that facilitates merely stopping the activity rather than seeking damages and punishment seems to me desirable.
As it stands, Section 230 of the CDA offers a more or less complete safe harbor immunity to any "provider of an interactive service" for law-infringing content, with copyright currently being the only exception.
I could care less about making it easier to out anonymous commentators, and in fact oppose any effort to make that easier. But on the other hand, illegal content is illegal content, and once a provider is notified that they are hosting illegal content, I have no objection with a requirement to take it down or assume liability for it.
But for anyone still reading this (and reading at the 1 level, since one assumes this comment ain't going anywhere in moderation), if you want a sane take on naked short selling that isn't from someone with fingers all over the pie, NPR did a piece on naked short selling recently as part of their regular podcast/blog called Planet Money (which is a fantastic primer on the financial crisis in general).
I'm a Wikipedia administrator - I make no secret of it. But I'm pretty uninvolved in the Mantamoreland incident, except for a general dislike of all sides.
I remain deeply unconvinced, mind you, that Mantanmoreland's version of the naked short selling article was wrong. His tactics clearly were. That the article was? Less clear.
I am a Wikipedia administrator. My role in this drama consists of a brief cameo at best: I created an article on Judd Bagley at one point. Mostly in protest of some poor decisions on policy that were being made.
My objection here is that Slashdot is being used to present a horribly biased account of something, based on a poorly written article stitched together by implication.
That and I find Byrne's "Sith Lord" claim absolutely hilarious, and feel compelled to repeat it as often as possible. It's like a financial Xenu!
I love how well prepared you are for this argument. Do you do anything else than hanging around on Wikipedia, fighting trolls and sockpuppet, and watching places like slashdot, in case the peasants try to fight back?
Are you suggesting I go write my dissertation? Sir, you impugn my honor!
What, exactly, is the evidence that the current financial crisis is due to naked short selling?
I never supported the policy, and was one of the most vehement opponents of it applying to articles. Again, yes - if you want to go into the politics of Wikipedia, there's plenty of spots that are un-transparent.
However you do not need to know anything about the authors of Wikipedia to evaluate the quality of an article.
Yes. I wholly support the SEC's move. I just think that, without more evidence, the SEC's move is utterly unconnectable to Byrne and his claims. Which is the significant thing here.
Slashdot Mirror
Because you need a screen that will reflect the light back in a polarized fashion. In film terms, you're talking about a screen with silver crystals in it for reflectivity. But those screens are enormously fragile - which is part of why 3-D keeps flopping over in theaters - if one person throws their drink at the screen, or even touches it, the screen is wrecked for good and needs to be replaced.
That's not technology suitable for home usage. Which is why home systems have always been based on field sequential systems of 3-D.
I'm surprised that the only engine on this list to derive from the Quake family is the Call of Duty engine. I'm not enough of a game engine expert to disagree with any given choice, but it's very, very surprising to me to see one of the major families of engines basically ignored. At the very least, some discussion of its omission seems in order.
I advise caution in believing this story. ProtesterHelp, earlier today, was spreading false information that Mousavi had been arrested on Twitter. The combination makes me suspect attention whoring in lieu of truth.
Oh. Maybe the parent comment was referring to that. But through the 80s, Disney also had a practice of doing theatrical re-releases of its classic animated films - they stopped in favor of home release. Similar practices, but I took re-release to mean theatrical release.
To be fair, by most accounts Disney has improved over the last year or two. Yes, the era where Home on the Range and Brother Bear were coming out was a bit of a trainwreck. But their most recent animated film, Bolt, did appreciable business and was generally well received. And the buzz they're getting for The Princess and the Frog, their return to traditional animation, is significant. Rapunzel is also getting generally good buzz.
The general sense seems to be that Disney bought Pixar in a large part to get John Lasseter to work on all of their films. And that he's been turning the ship around.
*blink*
Well, yes, but I'm not entirely sure how Toy Story 2 is an example of how Disney is prone to sequels and Pixar is becoming more like Disney.
Yes, all right, i was (perhaps unfairly) assuming that the comparison was being made between Disney's animated films and Pixar's films. If we are claiming that Monsters Inc 2 is an example of Pixar being more like Kill Bill, then let me be the first to say "oh hell yes."
We'd generally call those DVD releases. "Limited re-release" implies theatrical release.
I'm trying very hard to think of a theatrically released Disney sequel.
Ah yes. The Rescuers Down Under.
I do not believe there is a second. So theatrically released sequels are in fact pretty un-Disney.
I also don't think Disney has done a limited re-release in about 20 years.
First of all, Pixar has two announced films not mentioned here - The Bear and the Bow and Newt - both of which are original properties. Bear and the Bow is slated to share 2011 with Cars 2, and Newt is set for 2012.
Second of all, the suggestion that the "most likely" date for Monsters Inc 2 is 2012 is tenuous at best. The only time in the last decade Pixar has had a director do two films with only three years in between is when Brad Bird did Ratatouille three years after The Incredibles, and that was him coming on a film in mid-production. If Docter is directing it, it would be surprising to see it before 2013.
This story, in other words, is nonsense - the only actual content to it is that there's a sequel to Monsters Inc.
Fair enough. But if you cut the Bonding plant instead of digging it up, well, don't say I didn't warn you. :)
Return to Zork is hardly a venerable game. It was a rather poor adventure game for the era, with at least one extremely counter-intuitive puzzle, as well as a error you can make very early in the game that renders it unbeatable, and gives you no clue that you've made an error when you make the mistake.
Zork: Grand Inquisitor, the third of Activision's 90s Zork games, was the lone one of that set that can be fairly called Venerable.
The highlight of the article is really where he says that being difficult to program for just means that the system offers more opportunities.
I mean, if that was their goal, they should have required coding in INTERCAL.
Maybe the helicopter he has isn't adequate after all.
Eh. I think that puts too high a bar. Generally speaking, if someone is slandering me, I'd rather just find a way to stop the slander than to have an obligation to seek damages. Which is, to my mind, the major advantage of something like the DMCA. Frankly, DMCA takedown notices are vastly superior to actually having lawsuits for damages at every single case of infringement. Now I'm all for reform and a system whereby spurious notices can be treated as the harassment they are. But on the other hand, a system in place that facilitates merely stopping the activity rather than seeking damages and punishment seems to me desirable.
As it stands, Section 230 of the CDA offers a more or less complete safe harbor immunity to any "provider of an interactive service" for law-infringing content, with copyright currently being the only exception.
I could care less about making it easier to out anonymous commentators, and in fact oppose any effort to make that easier. But on the other hand, illegal content is illegal content, and once a provider is notified that they are hosting illegal content, I have no objection with a requirement to take it down or assume liability for it.
But for anyone still reading this (and reading at the 1 level, since one assumes this comment ain't going anywhere in moderation), if you want a sane take on naked short selling that isn't from someone with fingers all over the pie, NPR did a piece on naked short selling recently as part of their regular podcast/blog called Planet Money (which is a fantastic primer on the financial crisis in general).
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2008/09/listen_up_naked_short_selling.html is the link for the piece on naked short selling, and it's absolutely worth a listen.
I have never been on the arbitration committee. Please get your facts straight.
I'm a Wikipedia administrator - I make no secret of it. But I'm pretty uninvolved in the Mantamoreland incident, except for a general dislike of all sides.
I remain deeply unconvinced, mind you, that Mantanmoreland's version of the naked short selling article was wrong. His tactics clearly were. That the article was? Less clear.
I am a Wikipedia administrator. My role in this drama consists of a brief cameo at best: I created an article on Judd Bagley at one point. Mostly in protest of some poor decisions on policy that were being made.
My objection here is that Slashdot is being used to present a horribly biased account of something, based on a poorly written article stitched together by implication.
That and I find Byrne's "Sith Lord" claim absolutely hilarious, and feel compelled to repeat it as often as possible. It's like a financial Xenu!
I love how well prepared you are for this argument. Do you do anything else than hanging around on Wikipedia, fighting trolls and sockpuppet, and watching places like slashdot, in case the peasants try to fight back?
Are you suggesting I go write my dissertation? Sir, you impugn my honor!
What, exactly, is the evidence that the current financial crisis is due to naked short selling?
Follow up on the sources given. If there are no sources given, treat as though an anonymous person you didn't know wrote it on the Internet.
That's really just the same reasoning as I provided running in the other direction.
Regardless, magazines would be hard-pressed to sell subscriptions at newsstand prices.
I never supported the policy, and was one of the most vehement opponents of it applying to articles. Again, yes - if you want to go into the politics of Wikipedia, there's plenty of spots that are un-transparent.
However you do not need to know anything about the authors of Wikipedia to evaluate the quality of an article.
Yes. I wholly support the SEC's move. I just think that, without more evidence, the SEC's move is utterly unconnectable to Byrne and his claims. Which is the significant thing here.