I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since it appears as though you are asking a valid question, but I do have to say I'm tired of hearing the argument implied in this question pop up in every discussion of framerates, whether in film or games.

First and foremost, everyone should visit this link: http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html Put simply, the human mind, and eyes, can perceive far more than 24, 30, or even 60 frames per second. Not consciously well enough that we can point out which image is operating at 58fps and which at 60fps, but our minds perceive the difference even if we don't know it.

As far as it pertains to film, there is a long history with 24 frames per second that we don't need to go into here, but suffice it to say it's an stylistic choice that films have been shot in for a century. The problem is that it's really a rather slow framerate, which looks just fine - I would argue great - on normal films, but on 3D, due to their doubling of frames to create the depth illusion, ends up looking muddy and, frankly, gives many people a headache. The idea behind shooting at 48 frames per second was that, since 3D is double the frames, just double the framerate and you'll solve all those pesky problems with 3D.

Apparently, people still aren't liking that, but I'll hold out judgment until I see for myself.

People seem to forget, or never learned, that the gaming market has crashed before; in the 1980s, to be precise. And why? Because loads of shovelware titles were being released to capitalize on gamers' increasing willingness to buy them, while development costs were skyrocketing, and every other game was a ripoff of another title that came before it. Sound familiar?

Eventually all the bloat collapsed in on itself and the market for video games nearly died.

Personally, I'm of the opinion another video gaming crash may not be such a bad thing. The price of games is already many times over that of other forms of media (would you buy a typical book or movie for $60?), while development costs are starting to outpace even most big studio movie productions. Ingenuity and creativity are among the casualties, while developers and publishers are trying every way under the Sun to extract as much money as possible from customers, from activation limits, to invasive DRM, to serious considerations to kill used game sales (a first sale right that extends to every other product on the market, yet gaming companies seem to think they, somehow, should be a special exception). Financially, the market is booming, while creatively, it is dying.

Without the gaming crash of the 1980s, we never would have had Nintendo. I'd like to see what major boons would come out of another crash.

I can certainly see how, for the majority of people, this is the case. It is certainly easier to shoot money off here and there almost on a whim for various things we would have just gone without before.

For me, though, I'd have to say that technology has made it easier to save. Cash has always tended to burn a hole in my pocket until I find a way to get rid of it, but being able to just have a set of numbers show up in my accounts and move them around with ease has relieved most of that spendcrazy drive while making it more satisfying to move that money into my savings.

I suspect the true root here isn't that technology itself is to blame for the lack of saving, but that people are driven to spend, spend, spend anyway, and technology has made it far easier to do so without ever even leaving the couch. If you're not motivated to save already, technology isn't going to help you, I think.

Another classic example of the system - and this is hardly unique to public education - putting emphasis on teaching what to think, instead of how.

I had a 4th grade teacher who I used to drive bonkers because, while teaching mathematics, she would teach that it was not possible to subtract to any number smaller than 0, similar to teaching that you can't divide by zero. This was because, at that point, the curriculum had not yet reached the level of negative numbers. Well, I would constantly insist that no, you could subtract to a number smaller than 0, but because it was contrary to the point she was trying to teach she would tell me I was wrong.

The problem is in having a system which is so structured to the point of quantifying learning to a set of metrics based on what we want children to think that any actual education, or independent thought on the part of the students or the teachers, is completely marginalized and often destroyed.

Hey, maybe now they can actually make a game, instead of a glorified tech demo (Crysis) or an interactive movie (Crysis 2)...

Yes, you're right. For the rest of us, please defend child pornography groups and groups posting pictures of dead children.

Nobody should expect any more than this from the site that Reddit has become. I mean, this was a site that for as long as possible allowed child predators and pedophiles to run amok with no regulation or oversight, and then only did something about it when it threatened to become a public relations nightmare. They still allow subreddits about disgusting material to operate in that manner, including one glorifying pictures of dead children.

Read the comments on there and you'll regularly find people defending the indefensible, and basically living up to that Penny Arcade "total fuckwad" theory from a while back. There are many redeeming qualities about the site, including being an overall fine news aggregator, but the community itself is something which reflects more negatively than positively on it. In many respects, it's worse than 4chan.

So, honestly, it doesn't surprise me at all to find that there are a great deal of people there who would do this. Even if the post itself is a hoax, the bullying wasn't, and that should be primarily what the discussion is about on all of this.

I have my issues with Microsoft, and enough of them to preclude any possibility of me ever becoming a fanboy no matter how much I may like a certain number of their products, but I agree with the assessment in this article.

Apple gets a pass because they have better marketing than God, and, as a result, a more loyal religion. Facebook gets a pass because they are everybody's favorite virtual hangout spot. Google gets a pass because they've long been thought of as almost an interchangeable term with "the internet" and they're constant, but undeserved, refrain of "don't be evil". But Microsoft? They're like the tech world's Yankees. They've dominated for so long, and in many ways so unfairly (at least in the past), that it doesn't matter how good of a show they put on because everybody is just showing up to boo them.

I suppose every story needs a villain, though. IBM is too far removed from consumers' minds to fill that role, anymore. Perhaps it is the inevitable karma of their past monopolist actions catching up to them, but it certainly seems as though Microsoft have become the pariah at the party these days.

"You just realized that you can be tracked whole connected to a cell network? Really?"

Uh, no, and I don't know how you inferred that. I was saying that, given these set of circumstances allowing tracking, why can't those circumstances be used to support actual law enforcement.

I agree that the device's worth itself is low on the list of priority, but tackling systematic crime and criminals shouldn't be. Chances are that if someone is willing to steal a phone like this, they are likely involved in other thefts or criminal activity which would be worth stopping.

Here's what I don't get: if the carriers are capable of, even if unwilling to, bricking phones remotely, that must mean they know where those phones are at any given time, at least to the level of the nearest cell tower. If the phone is on the internet, they can be even more accurate than that. So, it seems to me, the phones themselves are built-in tracking devices that would work in law enforcement's favor; something that bricking would destroy.

Why not just work with law enforcement, through proper warrants of course, in tracking down the stolen phones and, hopefully, the thieves with them?

Is this just not a realistic possibility from a technical standpoint?

It should be simple: what the research funded fully, or even partially, by the public? Then all the results from it should be fully available to the public. If researches don't like that, they can be free to seek private funding, in which chase a reasonable restriction would be that all privately funded research becomes available to the public after ten years, since knowledge is a public good.

This whole mentality of taking the public's money but then hiding the knowledge behind paywalls, even to the researchers themselves, is counterintuitive to the progress of the human race, and is not acceptable.

As someone who provides SEO, among other things - shameless plug alert: www.uvmanagement.com - I see this as being a welcome change.

It is frustrating trying to provide what I deem "honest" SEO - focusing on marketing the content, rather than creating content which is marketable, for example - when so many other providers out there use all the tricks in the book to increase page rankings without actually having content worthy of where they end up. I very well could engage in such tactics, but I'm a nerd before I'm a businessman, and I'm not particularly happy with how "cluttered" the web has become over the past decade as more and more people have learned how to exploit holes in its system.

It can be incredibly frustrating trying to find something on Google (or any other engine), when the first several pages are filled with worthless or ultimately irrelevant links.

Games are drastically overpriced at $60. There is not a single other form of popular media, sans original art printings perhaps, that are at that level; not movie tickets, not albums, not movies, not books. And, as there is no shortage of games worth my time to choose from, I have been happy to wait for sales; I haven't paid more than $10 for a game in years.

The average casual game is priced from $1-$10 on iOS or Android, with most falling on the low end of that. One could say that those games are less evolved, or less advanced, than their console/PC equivalents, and that may be true to a point. But with the average timespan of modern games continually decreasing (seeing a AAA game with an average campaign of under 10 hours is quite common), and the only real differences becoming the higher end graphics and control scheme, that justification is rapidly losing its credibility.

If indie and casual developers can make a profit creating a game on a sub-$million budget and a retail cost of $1-10, then so can the big names. I've yet to see more than a handful of "serious" games come out over the past few years that justified its eight figure budget (or more). And when you factor in the increasing reliance on DLC to nickel-and-dime the customer for content that used to be included in the retail copy, I think more and more gamers will start to see that paying $60 for a game that offers more or less the same end experience as the $10 games simply doesn't make sense.

Publishers and developers will simply have to adapt to that; otherwise, just as the gaming market has crashed before (read: Atari), it will crash again. And no amount of hand-wringing or ranting from the big names is going to change that.

Unless the apps are specifically hardwired to scale 1:1, I don't see why, if what you're arguing is the case, they couldn't have just gone to 1280x960 or 1600x1200. If it's just the aspect ratio that is hardwired, any 4:3 resolution should work.

If Apple did, indeed, hardwire the system to require 1:1 scaling like that, well, that's just stupid on an incredible level.

What Google failed to understand is that superior technology or features does not attract people to something; the culture, meaning the people, do. Everyone who cared about social networking was already on Facebook, or at least everybody they knew was, so what incentive was there to suddenly make the switch to Google+? Switching for switching's sake? People don't operate that way.

There are really only three types of people: those who go where everyone else goes, the smaller group who specifically want to go where everybody else does not go, and those few types who consistently keep believing that superior technologies (whether in operating systems, phones, media players, or gaming devices) are what dictate the market.

Google+ attracted much of the second and third groups, but almost none of the first. And why? Because it's as though Google+ was a party at a huge, new mansion, and Facebook was a party at a slightly smaller, older mansion. Sure, Google+ had more stuff, and their house was maybe built a little better, but everybody was already at Facebook's party. And Google failed to understand that promises of toys don't win people over; everyone else having those toys does.