Why would I want a square picture of what is broadcast in a decidedly un-square format? You've substituted your so-called square view for glare from many angles. And you've further reduced the acceptable viewing angle.

As for not having seen anyone watching 3D in their home, I suspect you aren't
invited into those homes that have a 3D telly. That hardly is a standard by which to judge.

My neighbor down the street does, and he subscribes to Comcast 3D service.
It does work. Its nice. Not all that much of an improvement, if you ask me, just a novelty.

Is it a fad? Sure.

But just because your small outlook on the world doesn't include something, its no in indication that something doesn't exits, or that it doesn't work.

I've never met a single normally sighted person who failed to get a 3D effect from Movies or TV to work.
So this large majority of which you speak doesn't seem to exist unless this group also includes all those who have never been to a 3D movie.

Further you can subscribe to 3D channels on Comcast if you were so inclined. Its not that hard to find content in 3D.

The odd bit is at the end of TFS where they say that curved TVs are a gimmick like 3D TVs. There is a big difference, 3D TVs actually give an appearance of 3D when viewing 3D content, (all the brain-and-eye confusing tricks and deception notwithstanding). Every reasonably normal sighted person can see the 3D effect, most just don't think its worth the price (or the headaches).

Curved TVs on the other hand provide a picture that is indistinguishable from normal flat screens, EVEN when you see them side by side in the store.

Don't I wish.

A cynic might argue that the key difference in this case was that, for a change, the ISP's, and not merely defendants, were challenging the subpoenas; but of course we all know that justice is 'blind'.

An ingrate might bemoan the Court's failure to address the key underlying fallacy in the "John Doe" cases, that because someone pays the bill for an internet account that automatically makes them a copyright infringer; but who's complaining over that slight omission?

A malcontent like myself might be a little unhappy that it took the courts ten (10) years to finally come to grips with the personal jurisdiction issue, which would have been obvious to 9 out of 10 second year law students from the get go, and I personally have been pointing it out and writing about it since 2005; but at least they finally did get there.

And a philosopher might wonder how much suffering might have been spared had the courts followed the law back in 2004 when the John Doe madness started; but of course I'm a lawyer, not a philosopher. :)

Bottom line, though: this is a good thing, a very good thing. Ten (10) years late in coming, but good nonetheless. - R.B. )

But what sense would that make? Why not just say, "Somebody else will have to implement UEFI support, because I'm Audi 5000" and abandon the project where it sits?

Yeah, but isn't it idiotic that to stop everything and shut down your computer, you clicked on "Start"?

That might be nice, but it's not hard to disable all of that stuff from the options. I use Word all day, every single day, and I don't ever have to wrestle with it. It does auto-correct some of my typos, too, for which I'm thankful.

Methinks you need to go back and watch Empire. There's a whole section in the middle with this little green guy that basically is all about your question.

No they were there on purpose, and they were all real, too. They weren't added in with CG, Abrams actually had people hiding around the set to shine lights into the lenses.

Bullshit.
Draconian rules from the EU are only trotted out against american companies.

The EU does not care about its citizens privacy at all, until there is a foreign company involved.
Half the EU countries have pernicious government spying even more deeply than the NSA.

This privacy a fiction trotted out only against off shore interests.

A court does not always require two sides.
And even if they do insist on a deposition from Google, an automated routine in the search engine can spit out Google's grounds for rejection.

The courts made this mess, and they can deal with it.

In that case, Google doesn't have to review it. No standards for review was provided.

They shouldn't review any of these, they should simply reject all of them.

(Or at best have a computerized review, that is programmed to deny in the overwhelmingly vast majority of cases. After all, if a computer algorithm was what got these links into the search engine, another algorithm can be used to reject claims that don't meet an excruciatingly tight set of criteria.)

Until the complainant comes back with a ruling from a court of competent jurisdiction, THEN and ONLY THEN, should Google review them, and they should still err on the side of rejection to force an even higher court to review.

The court made this bed - the courts can sleep in it.