Show me a study. No I am serious. My understanding is that around 24 fps is necessary to trick the human eye into seeing continuous motion, hence movies are shown at 24 frames per second, but also using blurring on individual frames. In other words if you look at a single frame of a scene in a movie where the action is happening quickly, the single frame will not be a static image, it will have blurring artifacts. If the single frame was a sharp static picture and was in between other sharp static pictures, the movie would look really weird playing at 24 fps whenever there was a lot of motion happening on the screen.

I can see the difference in a game running at 30 fps and 60 fps. Both look like they are moving pictures and not a series of still images being constantly redrawn, but there is a distinction i can make between the two. You probably can too. Setup a blind seeing test if you want to find out.

I also prefer games at a constant 60fps over games at a constant 30fps. I notice the difference. I like the 60fps ones more.

Foxit, the maker of the Foxit PDF reader claims ISO-32000 compliance for their Enterprise Edition on their website. I couldn't find the binary as this version requires registration and looks like it costs money. Their regular free version is currently 14MB for the installer. I don't know how compliant it is, but it can't be too far (it reads all PDF's I've thrown at it).

So how much of Adobe Reader code is not for conforming to ISO 32000 and instead for supporting additional features that are not in the standard and for features for interoperability with other Adobe products that have nothing to do with the simple task of opening and rendering a PDF file? My hunch is quite a bit. More code == more possibilities of vulnerabilities.

I realize Foxit Reader is probably no more secure than Adobe Reader (except for having the smaller attack surface) but I like that it is very unpopular and thus does not get targeted as much by malicious hackers.

Ahh, you are correct. I did not think about that, and something like that is happening at the moment. When I got into bitcoins a few months ago, the cost was about $.80 per bitcoin, and had been stable for some time. I took a vacation and came back and all of a sudden the prices went up to $4 and then $5, hit $8 and are now in the $7 range. I feel dumb for having spent bitcoins previously.

So it is possible that bitcoins will lose their main function, to act as a currency for exchange, and will become purely a speculative commodity?

What would cause deflation in BitCoin if it took off? If anything, if BitCoin were to take off in a major way there would be massive inflation (inflation in the sense of value of BitCoin to other currencies, i.e., instead of costing $7 for a bitcoin, it would now cost $70)

Oh god, conservative vs. liberal with ((mac vs pc) vs linux) on an Easter Sunday.......I'm gonna go steal eggs from kids or something.

I apologize, I assumed that you were both disagreeing with the thesis of the parent post (China conducts industrial espionage on a regular basis, and does very little to stop it) as well as the arguments/analysis/reasoning the parent poster was using. In light of your presented information, I find myself not agreeing with the parent poster's arguments/analysis/reasoning, and applaud you for bringing forward information.

And I now notice you did not say one thing about the thesis, just the parent post's arguments, so my reply was a little hasty. So then the question remains, why does China (as a government, and as an assumed general consensus of the Chinese population) seem to condone conducting industrial espionage on the rest of the world? My own argument is pretty simple: they want to win.

Aside from the errors in the OPs post that you rightfully pointed out, and the flaw in his reasoning, you are saying that he/she is incorrect in his thesis, and that China (government and people's mentality) does not implicitly condone spying on other countries to conduct industrial espionage? Because it looks to me like they do.

The 3ds is a handheld console that does 3-dimensional displays (3-d like Avatar 3-D, or Tron 3-D) without the need for glasses. The mention of bringing mario to 3-d refers to bringing it to a console with a 3-dimensional display, not to having a game that takes place in a 3-d world/environment, like mario 64 and all the others.

That I finally got first post. And cool! I don't care for Nascar, but I like big useless monuments to entertainment that have a tech spin. I'd like to see this in action (though I'm indifferent to the car race gong on below.)

Last time I checked (a few years ago), Al-Jazeera was a shining example of independent journalism that reports all sides of a story, and is criticized in the West for being too pro-Islam, and very harshly criticized in the Islamic world for being too anti-Islam. Have things changed? Can you please cite me an example of Al-Jazeera having an agenda (other than "the truth", which is what Al-Jazeera means)?

Al-Jazeera receives funding from the government of Qatar (and is based in Qatar). The government of Qatar is a pretty big ally of the government of the United States. The government of the United State is a pretty big supporter of the Government of Israel. You make of that what you will when you see them report on news that is not taken well in Israel, the United State, or Qatar.

And if the company refuses to sell, because they are, literally, sitting on a goldmine (of black gold)?

My first thought (if this claim is true) was how soon until the engineers, scientists and owners of this company start disappearing, dying in car accidents or having cancer............

Instead of funny this comment should be modded deeply insightful.

This creeps me the fuck out on a base level.

I agree with you and hate to be a nitpicker, but the Declaration of Independence is not part of US law. It is a statement of principles and reasons for the thirteen colonies rebelling against the British Empire. Legal rights start at and derive from the US Constitution. The Declaration of Independence was and is tremendously influential towards US political philosophy, so maybe what you meant to say is that "clearly the rights enshrined in US government philosophy are intended to apply to all humans." And yes, we have never fully lived up to our principles, and have done many things completely counter to them throughout history and up until now, and that it is the job, the duty of the citizens of the country, to keep the government continually in check, even when it means inconveniencing our lives.