Use your normal 3D glasses from the cinema, and change player POV by closing one eye or the other...
Except that the current crop of 3D TVs for the home don't work with the cheap glasses from the cinema. They require expensive glasses that actively sync with the TV.
Now that one can do investigation journalism in US, reverse-engineering in Finland, publish leaks in Sweden could we please recognize that preventing the publication of a file on internet is utterly silly ?
As long as you don't get your countries mixed up, and create leaks in Holland, or attempt to reverse-engineer Swedish.
Public domain is supposed to be there for ever.
Only source code is forever.
Forever is a mighty long time. It doesn't take long for APIs and programming languages to become obsolete. So even source code becomes useless over time.
I can eliminate glare, so I'll take the better apparent saturation that glossy gives me in those cases.
But if you can eliminate glare, it's not going to make much difference either way, is it? In optimal viewing conditions, you won't be able to tell if the screen is glossy or matte when it is turned on.
I had a previous laptop with a matte screen and I always thought it seemed like it was out of focus.
You're probably comparing apples and oranges. I have an old laptop with a matte screen, too and it looks dim and murky now (partly because the backlight has aged) because the modern screens are brighter and have greater gamut and color saturation, particularly the LED ones.
I have a modern LED backlit screen with a matte surface on my desktop, and it looks fantastic - crisp, bright, good color, and no distracting reflections. You need to compare two similar modern gloss/matte screens, not your aging laptop with a new one.
They most certainly are not if you have a whopping great reflection of a window in front of them. In fact, you can't see the black (or anything) at all.
And I see absolutely no USE for a 10-year old binary without source code.
10-year-old versions of Photoshop are still quite useful today. That particular software hasn't progressed that much in that time, and supports data formats that are still commonly used.
Because users won't notice that it is highlighted
Why wouldn't they?
You haven't seen many novice users work on a computer, have you?
Like I said, it doesn't increase functionality. How does it increase functionality in any way?
Because it allows you to perform additional tasks easily. If you didn't have the double-click, how would you perform other operations on a file such as copying or renaming? Every time you clicked it, the file would launch. Not a particularly good idea.
No, why would I? You have two buttons, they should both have purposes.
So, why not also put more functionality into a single button? Why add more buttons if you don't need them.
What makes it different?? I don't see how they're in any way similar.
You're not very perceptive, are you? Perhaps you should leave thinking about human interfaces to people with a modicum of cognitive ability.
Amen, Barton. Obfuscation through walls of text is a scummy way to slip clauses past consumers. Too bad every company does it today.
I thought you were about to issue a cutting remark castigating the pages upon pages of arbitrary legislation issued by the government, but that's all you come up with? While praising the hypocritical Congressman at the same time? Damn, that was weak sauce.
Gosh, I wonder who would win in a "which is the most stupid waste of bandwidth for a supposed technology journalism site" smack-down; ZDnet or InfoWorld? We may never know.
What would be wrong with having one click highlight, and a second click not dependant on time execute?
Because it will confuse and annoy both new and experienced users.
I mean, single click an icon the second time and nothing happens, why does the second click have to be 1/n long to do anything?
Because users won't notice that it is highlighted, and then they click on it with some other intention in mind, and discover it has a completely different action, just because somebody else clicked it one 2 hours ago.
Now that nearly the whole world has gotten used to this stupid convention, it would be hard to change.
What's stupid about it? It's a simple way to increase functionality. Do you also think that right-clicking is stupid? What makes that any different than double-clicking?
for instance, has anybody else ever wondered what would happen if one were to crop-dust a heavily populated area with a suitably light-stabilized LSD solution?
Things would get very groovy very quickly. George Clinton would be elected President. Your funk of choice would be the P-Funk.
Slashdot Mirror
but why in the past 2 years is there a sudden jump towards 3D (Nintendo, Nvidia/ATI, Sony, TV companies, etc)?
Why would you even need to ask that question? The answers (which should be obvious to anyone) are:
Use your normal 3D glasses from the cinema, and change player POV by closing one eye or the other...
Except that the current crop of 3D TVs for the home don't work with the cheap glasses from the cinema. They require expensive glasses that actively sync with the TV.
Now that one can do investigation journalism in US, reverse-engineering in Finland, publish leaks in Sweden could we please recognize that preventing the publication of a file on internet is utterly silly ?
As long as you don't get your countries mixed up, and create leaks in Holland, or attempt to reverse-engineer Swedish.
source code (potentially at least) has intrinsic value far beyond it's practical re-usability, particularly in the academic sphere.
Only if you value history and academic questions above practical use.
For one thing. Why the hell does it matter? It's an
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Yeah, I drew a blank on this one, too.
Public domain is supposed to be there for ever.
Only source code is forever.
Forever is a mighty long time. It doesn't take long for APIs and programming languages to become obsolete. So even source code becomes useless over time.
Because it fails to encapsulate the true nature of the differences
How so? The glossy screen looks glossy, the matte screen looks matte. And that is the exact nature of the visual difference.
which is color, not reflectiveness.
What the hell? That's simply not true. The surface finish affects the nature of reflectiveness. It doesn't affect color.
But what drove me to sell the thing on eBay was the glossy screen.
Why didn't you just get a matte screen film to solve the problem?
and a black background is just impossible to read.
How does one read a black background? I would have thought it was the characters that you read.
How is it incorrect?
I can eliminate glare, so I'll take the better apparent saturation that glossy gives me in those cases.
But if you can eliminate glare, it's not going to make much difference either way, is it? In optimal viewing conditions, you won't be able to tell if the screen is glossy or matte when it is turned on.
I had a previous laptop with a matte screen and I always thought it seemed like it was out of focus.
You're probably comparing apples and oranges. I have an old laptop with a matte screen, too and it looks dim and murky now (partly because the backlight has aged) because the modern screens are brighter and have greater gamut and color saturation, particularly the LED ones.
I have a modern LED backlit screen with a matte surface on my desktop, and it looks fantastic - crisp, bright, good color, and no distracting reflections. You need to compare two similar modern gloss/matte screens, not your aging laptop with a new one.
blacks are darker
They most certainly are not if you have a whopping great reflection of a window in front of them. In fact, you can't see the black (or anything) at all.
(Man this decade is a real asshole already, and it's not even 7 months old yet!)
By the time it reaches middle-age, it's going to make George Carlin sound like Mr Rodgers.
I don't like the glossy screen and their chiclet keyboard
This is a chiclet keyboard. The current Apple keyboards certainly do not qualify for that designation.
And I see absolutely no USE for a 10-year old binary without source code.
10-year-old versions of Photoshop are still quite useful today. That particular software hasn't progressed that much in that time, and supports data formats that are still commonly used.
By coincidence, this is the same as the food energy in two Big Macs.
So, if I wear Big Macs as armor, I'll survive being shot by a Phalanx?
Because users won't notice that it is highlighted
Why wouldn't they?
You haven't seen many novice users work on a computer, have you?
Like I said, it doesn't increase functionality. How does it increase functionality in any way?
Because it allows you to perform additional tasks easily. If you didn't have the double-click, how would you perform other operations on a file such as copying or renaming? Every time you clicked it, the file would launch. Not a particularly good idea.
No, why would I? You have two buttons, they should both have purposes.
So, why not also put more functionality into a single button? Why add more buttons if you don't need them.
What makes it different?? I don't see how they're in any way similar.
You're not very perceptive, are you? Perhaps you should leave thinking about human interfaces to people with a modicum of cognitive ability.
Amen, Barton. Obfuscation through walls of text is a scummy way to slip clauses past consumers. Too bad every company does it today.
I thought you were about to issue a cutting remark castigating the pages upon pages of arbitrary legislation issued by the government, but that's all you come up with? While praising the hypocritical Congressman at the same time? Damn, that was weak sauce.
From http://www.infoworld.com/d/mobilize/windows-phone-7-dont-bother-disaster-211?
From http://www.zdnet.com/blog/cell-phones/microsoft-windows-phone-7-technical-preview-a-definitive-guide/4286?pg=8&tag=mantle_skin;content
Gosh, I wonder who would win in a "which is the most stupid waste of bandwidth for a supposed technology journalism site" smack-down; ZDnet or InfoWorld? We may never know.
What would be wrong with having one click highlight, and a second click not dependant on time execute?
Because it will confuse and annoy both new and experienced users.
I mean, single click an icon the second time and nothing happens, why does the second click have to be 1/n long to do anything?
Because users won't notice that it is highlighted, and then they click on it with some other intention in mind, and discover it has a completely different action, just because somebody else clicked it one 2 hours ago.
Now that nearly the whole world has gotten used to this stupid convention, it would be hard to change.
What's stupid about it? It's a simple way to increase functionality. Do you also think that right-clicking is stupid? What makes that any different than double-clicking?
... what about getting sex...
That's what sea cucumbers are for.
for instance, has anybody else ever wondered what would happen if one were to crop-dust a heavily populated area with a suitably light-stabilized LSD solution?
Things would get very groovy very quickly. George Clinton would be elected President. Your funk of choice would be the P-Funk.
And here I thought this story was about patients having thin skin...
If the patients had thin skin, it wouldn't really be an issue, would it? It's the thick skin that's harder to pierce.
I can't watch the video because it's in quicktime and I'm on a linux machine
Why would that prevent you from watching a Quicktime video?
...this means that there are people in the EU who are being denied their Basic Human Right to free 100MB Internet service!
I'm fairly certain that anybody in the EU has the ability to download 100 megabytes of data if they were so inclined.