shod
Perhaps obvious, but opinion of both 48 vs 24 FPS and motion interpolation seems to have a lot to do with expectations we’ve built from watching previous films (e.g., I watch so little live action that I was oblivious to the frame rate change there). I feel like that’s something people overlook (even in this thread) when they talk about these issues; 24 FPS isn’t better per se, it’s just that if you watch enough stuff intended to be played at about that frame rate, anything significantly higher starts to look wrong.
(Irrelevantly, a cool anecdote about motion blur: it’s what led Spielberg to prefer CGI dinosaurs over stop-motion techniques for Jurassic Park. Although animators were producing some fantastic dinosaur models, the lack of motion blur still left them feeling unnatural and out-of-place on film.)
Unfortunately, the cost of removing this sort of security theater as a deterrent is invisible and hypothetical, whereas the benefits are obvious.
Services are more deeply and negatively affected by price changes than software, though. A price change that seems insignificant to you can drive many users away. Look at the fiasco with Netflix last year; they changed their prices by about $6 and subsequently lost about a million subscribers within a few months. Some users see price increases as an indication of a service's instability in the marketplace (and therefore a cue to jump-ship). Most users have lower tolerance thresholds for price differences when comparing services than they do when comparing one-time purchases (like software).
Regardless, now would be a really bad time for Dropbox to increase their pricing. Many Mac & iPhone users are watching iCloud closely and realizing that it could make Dropbox redundant for them. A price increase, even one as small as a ~$30 a year change for their 50+ plan (corollary to your $3 a month change), could push enough users away from the service that Dropbox is better off sticking to its guns.
Whenever I have a complaint about a Kindle conversion (twice in two years), I try to rate the book based on the author's work -- the text itself -- but make the review title something like "Do not buy for Kindle", but I can see why reviewers might choose to do otherwise: it is, after all, the publisher's product and the publisher's fault for producing a sloppy "printing".
I want to say the English equivalent of America's Ivy League universities like Harvard and Yale are its older private universities like Oxford and Cambridge, but the truth is the reverse (Oxford, for example, dates back to about the 9th century!)
You may not have intended this, but that sentence reads as though iFlow is merely making less money than it wold like. The problem's worse than that. iFlow would be losing money with each book sold.
iFlow doesn't have the clout to negotiate contracts with individual major publishers: books are made available through a wholesaler. The wholesaler distributes the publisher's cut, takes its own, and gives iFlow itself a cut of _less than_ 30% of the sale price. Since Apple suddenly wants an entire 30% of the sale price, iFlow would literally be losing money with each transaction to make up Apple's "cut".
As part of the agency model, all books must be sold at the same retail price, so iFlow can't simply bump up the price of its books to compensate, either.
The latter figure may be the correct one, but the article is still wrong in using this death toll to decide that "rooftop solar is several times more dangerous than nuclear power" if Chernobyl is the example of nuclear power against which we are comparing rooftop solar: this is a callous and casual dismissal of the horrific disfigurements we see in children at Novinki, the hundreds of thousands of displaced families, the rescue workers who lost body parts to the cancer they subsequently suffered, and to the many other horrors and humiliations Chernobyl's victims have suffered.
In other words, this article only counts the deaths of reactor staff and emergency crew, and goes on to outrightly dismiss cancer deaths.
The article's stated purpose is to show a comparison of death tolls. The dramatic loss of quality of life due to radiation poisoning for thousands of people exposed to the highest levels of radiation surrounding the Chernobyl disaster, and the displacement of hundreds of thousands, is also worth considering when weighing the negative impact.
That said, with Chernobyl, we're talking about the absolute worst-case scenario for a nuclear reactor improperly contained (actually, not contained at all) and neglected long after warning signs were shown. We shouldn't practice historical revisionism or insult its victims by downplaying its impact, but we should also remember that its particular history will not be repeated with the containment barriers and safety measures in place at today's plants.
1. He drives a car.
2. He owns keys, cash, and cards.
3. He receives medical care.
4. His life expectancy is above 35 years.
5. He owns a computer.
6. His basic survival doesn't automatically involve exercise.
7. He has alternatives to walking when traveling long distances.
8. Universities exist in his time.
9. He sleeps on a mattress.
10. Medicine exists to help control many causes of death. He'll likely die of natural causes after a long life.
11. Flight is possible for humans.
12. He's able to express his thoughts in a way that can be recorded and processed by non-living machines.
13. He's able to consider nutrition in his diet.
14. He meets people outside his immediate community without necessarily considering them a threat.
15. He considers his own impact on the wellbeing of the planet.
16. When contemplating his family's safety, he is able to consider the assistance of police, firemen, and medical professionals.
17. Monetary investment exists in his time.
18. Monetary transactions exist in his time.
19. He's learning a foreign language.
20. His child's education includes reading, writing, and arithmetic.
21. He recognizes the concept of mental health.
22. He recognizes that disease has medical causes.
23. He is able to form written contracts to help counter the deceit of others.
24. Industry exists in his time.
25. He typed that post.
Locklin was no more making a defense for the skirt than I was making a criticism of it. His position is that the proper state of a woman is to wear dresses and skirts, and that the only possible reason for wearing pants is that she's ashamed of her gender. His position, in other words, is that women should be easily identifiable by a uniform. This is part of his preference for women who are subservient and can be kept in what he feels is their proper place.
That you attempt to frame this in terms of liberty reveals that you recognize the shamefulness of this attitude. Well, shame on you.
On class wars: Locklin proposes to "get along with a lower class person" by beating them until they "lick the boots that kick them". Even if class warfare were inescapable, Locklin's views offer no insight except into the violence of his own imagination, and my point was simply that.
You may think your views are legitimatized in seeing them written by someone who claims intellectual authority (even while railing against the institutions who credit it), but the rest of us recognize them for what they truly are: crude, violent, and misogynistic. You are right on this much: I'm not convinced we can fairly add racism to that list, but I'd hardly be surprised to be proven wrong.
http://www.alternativeright.com/main/the-magazine/the-case-f...
It's extremely revealing that he suggests Mel Gibson's attitude toward women as exemplary.
His articles on class structure expose a rather violent imagination about how best to conduct social intercourse:
"There are two ways of getting along with a lower class person at least to a limited extent. The first way is to beat the [expletive] out of them. They deserve it anyway, and most people lick the boots that kick them."
http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/zeitgeist/social-...
Good grief.
That said, I would like to read that article/thread. Do you have a link, or remember its title? I can't seem to hit upon the right combination of Google keywords. ;) Thanks.
As written, this statement is wrong.
Adroit developers are picking up HTML5's JS API's with more enthusiasm than they have ActionScript, and they'll push those API's to their limits, as they have done with the DOM API's. But the technology itself--the underlying standards--must necessarily evolve at a slower pace than a proprietary language like ActionScript. Browser vendors haven't quite caught up with HTML5's growth yet; once the the spec's final, W3C won't be moving the goalpost out any further for a long time.
ooh, and I also recommend Jacob Bronowski's "The Ascent of Man", which is a little older, but it's a similar concept, with a similarly eloquent presenter, focusing on the history of mankind.
I agree, but here's one of Hamilton's complaints:
"I'd barely gotten my head around the fundamental framework of the host/architect/subject relationship before I was being told about "totems" that anchor dreamers to the real world and "kicks" that wake them up..."
Nolan showed some of these things visually in the opening sequence before explaining them explicitly when Page was introduced: an architect (Lukas Haas) had introduced himself; we were shown what an architect is supposed to do (the wrong carpet); and we were shown a "kick". I thought these things were fairly intuitive, but it's a good job his script exposited them explicitly, or apparently Hamilton would've been completely lost.
Perhaps sometimes a little weak storytelling is good for the audience.