I used to be a staffer who prepared graphics for high level government presentations. I was hired because I knew what I was doing, and I'd have been fired if I made a mistake like this. Let me correct that -- I'd have been fired, my boss would have been fired, and the company for which I worked would have lost a multi-million dollar contract which would in turn place scores of other peoples continued employment in jeopardy.

To write this off as just some staffer's oversight displays a certain ignorance about how important presentations come together, how they're vetted, and the competency of people involved in creating those presentations.

Dumb avoidable mistakes are relevant. It is a peek at how a candidate's party will govern. Not that we need the peek -- it's no surprise that neither party is competent. We're circling the drain and they still want to have their slap fight.

Damn those people in the first world. Damn them and their industriousness, their striving for a quality education, and their ability to organize and cooperate effectively at a societal level. Those bloody whiners better not wake me during my siesta. If you're so morally elevated, get off the internet and feed someone.

Not all rights are enumerated in the Constitution. The Nineth Amendment to the US Constitution is:

The judge is mistaken and perhaps incompetent.

I told you to implement the PGP chastity belt, but nooooo you had to use freeware you found on the interweb.

Hubris will lead to Apple's ultimate downfall.

Effete.

So, only people who make giant piles of money should be prevented from gratuitously damaging other people's reputations? Laws and consequences only exist to reign in the destructive behavior of the wealthy?

They hate that you have the advantages they did in school. Now that they've crossed the bridge, it must be burned.

Get in line.

It's a shame this announcement was necessary. A generation ago, it wouldn't have been required. Now that it's been made perfectly clear, I'd like to see the next DC police officer who interferes with a citizen-photographer lose his job.

Imagine how disappointed I was when I read it as "Tracy Lords" and then realized my mistake.

3D content creators seem to ignore the reason we evolved 3D vision -- to navigate rapidly in real 3D space and to range-find. Without those needs, we probably would not have developed binocular vision and a capability to process the resulting data. Cinematic storytelling remains linear. There is no interactive component that requires either spacial navigation or range-finding; so in the context of filmmaking, 3D serves as a sort of vestigial organ to the larger non-cinematic reality in which we are normally immersed.

3D Filmmakers rely heavily on a small set of gimmicks (e.g., an object protruding from the screen plane into the audience space) to exploit the 3D technology. These gimmicks do not add to the experience beyond superficial self-actualization -- "Hey Look! Three-dimensions!" These visual bits are unnecessary parlor tricks that neither advance the story nor develop the characters.

I'm not sure why you think we care about Florida.

I'm glad you focused our attention on that sentence from the journal article. It is a particularly poorly made point. Adoption is instantaneous, implementation takes time. Also, "adaption measures" for something like a slowly rising waterline are not something we even need to consciously adopt. Adaptation happens organically.

It's is wildly unlikely someone will drown because they were caught unaware the water rose a meter over a century. However, time travelers might get their feet wet if they beam into a damp patch that was previously dry. The horror.