The Land camera is from 1948. The SX-70 gave up and went out of production 29 years ago. You know, when a new portable computer was a 26 lb suitcase running CP/M. Since then, people have been born, educated, and started families. Polaroid isn't part of modern photographic history anymore. Film barely qualifies now, nevermind Polaroid as an innovator.
I mean "modern" as in the 20th Century and onwards. You have a pretty narrow definition of modern if you only mean the last few decades. Most of the work and research that is relevant to today's digital cameras was done quite some time ago. It's not like optics, physics and chemistry suddenly changed when we stopped using film.
As much as I'm for wikileaks and against all the things the government is doing to cover up their tracks, you can't take anything from salon.com seriously. It make tabloids look reputable.
So, do you have any actual reason why Salon's articles should be ignored, other than you don't like the publication? From what I've seen, they have a very good record of publishing accurate and informative stories.
People, is this really transparency? Or is this espionage? Frankly I think that all the wikileaks documents fall on the side of espionage. Allow me a minute to elaborate my position. The government, private industry, and even individuals. Have private things that they want to keep private. By law, everyone's privacy is protected. When documents that are supposed to be private are "stolen" that is espionage and theft.
Have you read the contents of these diplomatic cables? 90% of it should not be secret, it should be public information. This is information about what politicians are doing in our name. It is basically the property of the American people.
The only theft here is Americans being deprived of their own property, and the right to know, all because some politicians want to cover up their own incompetence. They don't want to answer to the people they work for, they want to use office for their own enrichment, their own private deals.
Remember, there is no "disagree" mod option. If you disagree, step up and say so, and support your arguments!
Well, there should be a mod for posting incorrect claims. Until there is, people will use alternatives. Some arguments are just so incorrect it's not worth spending the time debating them.
Why should we waste time debating drivel and distractions, when we should be discussing the salient facts and issues? If we went down the path you suggest, then we'd have to debate every crackpot argument.
But seriously, this sounds like a much more sensible approach than many other US responses we've seen so far.
Well, when all of the other US responses we've seen have been balls-out-mind-fuckingly-retarded-multiplied-by-Ashton-Kutcher-on-a-short-bus, a response that is only extremely retarded might seem more sensible, but only in a relative sense.
Kodak didn't miss digital - they were even one of the pioneers of digital photography back in the 70s - nothing commercial though.
Kodak is quite successful with their Leaf brand of sensors
Actually, they kind of did. The work back in the 70s was basically ignored by the company. Much like Xerox ignored the company's own work on computing because they are all about selling photocopiers, Kodak ignored digital imaging because they are all about selling film.
Even your example of Leaf is quite salient. For Kodak, digital was a niche product for exotic purposes. What they missed is that it would soon take over all photography and become a cheap, mass-market product, rather than a rarefied high-margin niche.
Ask yourself - which would have been more profitable for Kodak - selling a handful of $10,000+ Leaf sensors, or owning the market in consumer digital cameras? Kodak has a terrible reputation in consumer digital, and rightly so.
Yes, turns out that Polaroid was in fact a competitor of Kodak
It turns out? That's one of the most fundamental facts of modern photographic history, not something that one should have to look up. You should really read about Dr. Land's life and work.
Now, I can imagine the organizational dysfunction where the guy speccing finishes might be told "low cost, attractive, applies to metal and aesthetically compatible with leather", without being told that his finish really has to be dielectrically stable for the lifetime of the product, while, at the same time, the guy who knows that the hooks must not short the device has no say in the finish selection...
I doubt it even got to that level. You're probably over-thinking it. I think it's more likely that the people making the case had no idea that there was electrical power being supplied to those hooks, and thought it was merely a mechanical connection. It's not like people who make leather covers usually have anything to do with electronic engineers.
I would argue that this is the exact reason that split-screen is still necessary because without split-screen, then the person must to be in a different building with their own system and copy of the game.
Wait a minute. Can you please explain why non-split-screen multiplayer modes require the players to be in different buildings and have their own systems?
Yeah because 'cramming' everything on one 42"+ HDTV is so horrible. Did you even think about what you were saying?
Yes, I did. Even on a HDTV, split-screen is horribly distracting.
What about the social aspect of sitting on the couch with a friend or loved one sharing the experience?
Nothing wrong with that... but why does it require split-screen? You can do that with sequential multiplayer where you take turns, or many other multiplayer modes.
In fact, I think you're more likely to get interaction with friends and loved ones via other modes, because they aren't as off-putting as split-screen.
I'm played around with it a bit, but to me it just seems like a very limited type of Second Life minus all the social stuff, scripting, interaction, etc.
Wait a minute. Isn't lack of Second Life style interaction an advantage, not a drawback?
For some games split-screen is the only way to play multiplayer on a single screen.
Yeah, so what? How does this make split-screen the only way to have fun with friends?
Remember, that was your original argument. That by not being a fan of split-screen gaming, one must be opposed to having fun with friends. You didn't say anything about friends coming over who specifically wanted to play games that could only be played multiplayer via split-screen.
It seems like a dubious contention, anyway. Why would a game only be able to played via split-screen? It seems to me that any game which could be played via split-screen could also be played by two separate screens placed side-by-side.
Saying this I hope you don't think I oppose Franken simply because I am Republican. I said the same about Bush treating the Constitution like toilet paper. I am not. I am registered "No Party Preference".
So, if you are of no party preference, then why did you say that you are a Republican in a preceding sentence?
So : IF you have a game that is NOT FIT for shared screen, BUT you still want to retain the FUN factor of having friends around, AND all this while talking about the COMMON CASE of a few friends coming over, THEN split screen is a perfectly acceptable compromise of quality.
But what makes it better than a single shared screen? You appeared to be arguing that split-screen was the only solution to friends coming over to casually play a game. Even though a shared single screen seems a lot more common solution these days.
I was simply throwing out alternative ideas, because commenters here seem to be stuck in a false dichotomy between split-screen and online multiplayer.
What do you mean? Not all games work without split-screen so split-screen functionality allows people to play those games on the same screen.
I meant that split-screen is not the only way to play multiplayer games on a single screen. So, what makes it superior to multiplayer games that don't use split-screen? It certainly doesn't seem as popular in my opinion.
You were claiming that preferring other types of gaming than split-screen means that I don't value fun with friends.
Split-screen gaming requires only one additional thing over single-player gaming - an extra controller. It's small, fits in a drawer and requires close to zero time to setup.
So does shared-single-screen gaming. So, what's the advantage to split-screen?
I'm talking about the common case here - a few friends coming over to your place
Yeah, me too. How does this make the argument any better? Few guests want to play a game with their own cramped section of a screen. I find that people enjoy non-split-screen multiplayer games much better. For example, Rock Band, Wii Sports or Buzz TV.
That supporting government regulation in the name of "Net Neutrality" is a sure fire way to help those in government who wish to expand government power.
Which is a pretty ridiculous argument, as net neutrality has nothing to do with expanding government power. If anything, it has the opposite effect, as it prevents the government from expanding its power via its corporate partners.
If you really think that the quality of fun with friends is better when they're NOT in the same room, fair enough..
When did I ever say that? It's entirely possible to have multiple displays in the same room. Ever heard of a LAN party? Ever heard of attaching multiple displays to a single device?
Okaaaay, so I'm the troll because I base my arguments on facts, and you're not because you build strawmen and can't be bothered responding rationally to simple arguments.
I'm pretty sure it's the opposite, because you are the one who based your argument on a lie (that there are no programs to encourage males to enter nursing) and then followed up by fabricating arguments I had never made, and claiming a conspiracy theory to subjugate males.
You do realize that simply making declarations doesn't make them true, don't you?
You value screen size and resolution over fun with friends? Oh right, this Slashdot.
Why should I have to sacrifice one for the other? Also, the reduction in image quality and confusing nature of gameplay reduces the level of fun with friends.
You want to reduce the quality of fun with your friends?
There's certainly some games that are online multiplayer that would be way more enjoyable w. splitscreen. For instance, AVP (the recent one) blows online-- unbalanced, sh*tty lobby system, and the maps are lame. Bad online experience all around...
A poor multiplayer online implementation for a particular game is not really a good argument for split-screen play, it's just a poor online multiplayer implementation.
Not that online multiplayer is the best solution for everything, but perhaps other ideas like multiple displays would be better than cramming everything on one screen?
Split screen always seemed like and awful thing to me - trying to cram all this different action onto a reduced-resolution portion of the screen. It's the same reason the Picture-in-Picture feature of TV sets is hardly used by anyone. There are probably better ways to have social gaming without dividing a single screen up.
Slashdot Mirror
The Land camera is from 1948. The SX-70 gave up and went out of production 29 years ago. You know, when a new portable computer was a 26 lb suitcase running CP/M. Since then, people have been born, educated, and started families. Polaroid isn't part of modern photographic history anymore. Film barely qualifies now, nevermind Polaroid as an innovator.
I mean "modern" as in the 20th Century and onwards. You have a pretty narrow definition of modern if you only mean the last few decades. Most of the work and research that is relevant to today's digital cameras was done quite some time ago. It's not like optics, physics and chemistry suddenly changed when we stopped using film.
As much as I'm for wikileaks and against all the things the government is doing to cover up their tracks, you can't take anything from salon.com seriously. It make tabloids look reputable.
So, do you have any actual reason why Salon's articles should be ignored, other than you don't like the publication? From what I've seen, they have a very good record of publishing accurate and informative stories.
People, is this really transparency? Or is this espionage? Frankly I think that all the wikileaks documents fall on the side of espionage. Allow me a minute to elaborate my position. The government, private industry, and even individuals. Have private things that they want to keep private. By law, everyone's privacy is protected. When documents that are supposed to be private are "stolen" that is espionage and theft.
Have you read the contents of these diplomatic cables? 90% of it should not be secret, it should be public information. This is information about what politicians are doing in our name. It is basically the property of the American people.
The only theft here is Americans being deprived of their own property, and the right to know, all because some politicians want to cover up their own incompetence. They don't want to answer to the people they work for, they want to use office for their own enrichment, their own private deals.
Remember, there is no "disagree" mod option. If you disagree, step up and say so, and support your arguments!
Well, there should be a mod for posting incorrect claims. Until there is, people will use alternatives. Some arguments are just so incorrect it's not worth spending the time debating them.
Why should we waste time debating drivel and distractions, when we should be discussing the salient facts and issues? If we went down the path you suggest, then we'd have to debate every crackpot argument.
But seriously, this sounds like a much more sensible approach than many other US responses we've seen so far.
Well, when all of the other US responses we've seen have been balls-out-mind-fuckingly-retarded-multiplied-by-Ashton-Kutcher-on-a-short-bus, a response that is only extremely retarded might seem more sensible, but only in a relative sense.
Kodak didn't miss digital - they were even one of the pioneers of digital photography back in the 70s - nothing commercial though.
Kodak is quite successful with their Leaf brand of sensors
Actually, they kind of did. The work back in the 70s was basically ignored by the company. Much like Xerox ignored the company's own work on computing because they are all about selling photocopiers, Kodak ignored digital imaging because they are all about selling film.
Even your example of Leaf is quite salient. For Kodak, digital was a niche product for exotic purposes. What they missed is that it would soon take over all photography and become a cheap, mass-market product, rather than a rarefied high-margin niche.
Ask yourself - which would have been more profitable for Kodak - selling a handful of $10,000+ Leaf sensors, or owning the market in consumer digital cameras? Kodak has a terrible reputation in consumer digital, and rightly so.
Yes, turns out that Polaroid was in fact a competitor of Kodak
It turns out? That's one of the most fundamental facts of modern photographic history, not something that one should have to look up. You should really read about Dr. Land's life and work.
Now, I can imagine the organizational dysfunction where the guy speccing finishes might be told "low cost, attractive, applies to metal and aesthetically compatible with leather", without being told that his finish really has to be dielectrically stable for the lifetime of the product, while, at the same time, the guy who knows that the hooks must not short the device has no say in the finish selection...
I doubt it even got to that level. You're probably over-thinking it. I think it's more likely that the people making the case had no idea that there was electrical power being supplied to those hooks, and thought it was merely a mechanical connection. It's not like people who make leather covers usually have anything to do with electronic engineers.
Read your own post:
"Saying this I hope you don't think I oppose Franken simply because I am Republican"
I would argue that this is the exact reason that split-screen is still necessary because without split-screen, then the person must to be in a different building with their own system and copy of the game.
Wait a minute. Can you please explain why non-split-screen multiplayer modes require the players to be in different buildings and have their own systems?
Yeah because 'cramming' everything on one 42"+ HDTV is so horrible. Did you even think about what you were saying?
Yes, I did. Even on a HDTV, split-screen is horribly distracting.
What about the social aspect of sitting on the couch with a friend or loved one sharing the experience?
Nothing wrong with that... but why does it require split-screen? You can do that with sequential multiplayer where you take turns, or many other multiplayer modes.
In fact, I think you're more likely to get interaction with friends and loved ones via other modes, because they aren't as off-putting as split-screen.
I'm played around with it a bit, but to me it just seems like a very limited type of Second Life minus all the social stuff, scripting, interaction, etc.
Wait a minute. Isn't lack of Second Life style interaction an advantage, not a drawback?
It is usually the trolls who start out their argument by belittling their opponent on their intentions.
Pot, meet kettle.
For some games split-screen is the only way to play multiplayer on a single screen.
Yeah, so what? How does this make split-screen the only way to have fun with friends?
Remember, that was your original argument. That by not being a fan of split-screen gaming, one must be opposed to having fun with friends. You didn't say anything about friends coming over who specifically wanted to play games that could only be played multiplayer via split-screen.
It seems like a dubious contention, anyway. Why would a game only be able to played via split-screen? It seems to me that any game which could be played via split-screen could also be played by two separate screens placed side-by-side.
Saying this I hope you don't think I oppose Franken simply because I am Republican. I said the same about Bush treating the Constitution like toilet paper. I am not. I am registered "No Party Preference".
So, if you are of no party preference, then why did you say that you are a Republican in a preceding sentence?
So : IF you have a game that is NOT FIT for shared screen, BUT you still want to retain the FUN factor of having friends around, AND all this while talking about the COMMON CASE of a few friends coming over, THEN split screen is a perfectly acceptable compromise of quality.
But what makes it better than a single shared screen? You appeared to be arguing that split-screen was the only solution to friends coming over to casually play a game. Even though a shared single screen seems a lot more common solution these days.
I was simply throwing out alternative ideas, because commenters here seem to be stuck in a false dichotomy between split-screen and online multiplayer.
What do you mean? Not all games work without split-screen so split-screen functionality allows people to play those games on the same screen.
I meant that split-screen is not the only way to play multiplayer games on a single screen. So, what makes it superior to multiplayer games that don't use split-screen? It certainly doesn't seem as popular in my opinion.
You were claiming that preferring other types of gaming than split-screen means that I don't value fun with friends.
Split-screen gaming requires only one additional thing over single-player gaming - an extra controller. It's small, fits in a drawer and requires close to zero time to setup.
So does shared-single-screen gaming. So, what's the advantage to split-screen?
I'm talking about the common case here - a few friends coming over to your place
Yeah, me too. How does this make the argument any better? Few guests want to play a game with their own cramped section of a screen. I find that people enjoy non-split-screen multiplayer games much better. For example, Rock Band, Wii Sports or Buzz TV.
That supporting government regulation in the name of "Net Neutrality" is a sure fire way to help those in government who wish to expand government power.
Which is a pretty ridiculous argument, as net neutrality has nothing to do with expanding government power. If anything, it has the opposite effect, as it prevents the government from expanding its power via its corporate partners.
If you really think that the quality of fun with friends is better when they're NOT in the same room, fair enough..
When did I ever say that? It's entirely possible to have multiple displays in the same room. Ever heard of a LAN party? Ever heard of attaching multiple displays to a single device?
You == troll.
Okaaaay, so I'm the troll because I base my arguments on facts, and you're not because you build strawmen and can't be bothered responding rationally to simple arguments.
I'm pretty sure it's the opposite, because you are the one who based your argument on a lie (that there are no programs to encourage males to enter nursing) and then followed up by fabricating arguments I had never made, and claiming a conspiracy theory to subjugate males.
You do realize that simply making declarations doesn't make them true, don't you?
You value screen size and resolution over fun with friends? Oh right, this Slashdot.
Why should I have to sacrifice one for the other? Also, the reduction in image quality and confusing nature of gameplay reduces the level of fun with friends.
You want to reduce the quality of fun with your friends?
There's certainly some games that are online multiplayer that would be way more enjoyable w. splitscreen. For instance, AVP (the recent one) blows online-- unbalanced, sh*tty lobby system, and the maps are lame. Bad online experience all around...
A poor multiplayer online implementation for a particular game is not really a good argument for split-screen play, it's just a poor online multiplayer implementation.
Not that online multiplayer is the best solution for everything, but perhaps other ideas like multiple displays would be better than cramming everything on one screen?
Split screen always seemed like and awful thing to me - trying to cram all this different action onto a reduced-resolution portion of the screen. It's the same reason the Picture-in-Picture feature of TV sets is hardly used by anyone. There are probably better ways to have social gaming without dividing a single screen up.