Now Apple decides it's time to make a phone with an entirely different aspect ratio. Really, what was the point of bothering with the resolution-independent screen positioning in their API's in the first place if they were just going to go and produce a completely different screen size that the programmer is going to have to write extra code to account for anyways?
What happens when the iPhone 6 comes out with a screen the same size as the 5, but with a higher resolution? What if they have plans for an as yet unannounced version of the iPad that also uses that aspect ratio, but being much larger has a higher resolution? iOS is being used in a lot of devices with probably more variety to come; resolution independent positioning still makes sense even if you have to take a few extra aspect ratios into account now.
(Speaking as a man with a foreskin, who can't quite imagine what it would be like not to have one... uncomfortable?)
I am circumcised; it is EXTREMELY uncomfortable; at some times almost painful. I frequently find it very depressing and can't even come close to imagining how good it would feel to not have had this happen.
software piracy is software piracy... if it were a real problem for Microsoft and the other companies, then they'd implement proper locks on the software,
Implement proper locks?! And how do you do that? Normally I keep reading comments here about how DRM is always destined to fail, which so far is true as far as I know. And they seem to be trying, such as Ubi's always available internet connection, Microsoft's online activation and 'trusted computing', and others that people have complained about. How do you implement a proper lock on software while making the experience decent enough for the user to use your software yet effective at preventing copying (heck, even screwing the user, how do you implement uncrackable copy protection? Remember, it just takes one person to get past it, the vast majority of people don't need to be that smart to pirate...) You may be right about the love/hate relationship with pirating to avoid people from using the competition, but implementing copy protection that works isn't exactly a trivial task.
In the end I've found the move to have pros and cons. The pros are that we simply never had the hardware infrastructure to provide the uptime requested of us (yet we were denied budget to build said infrastructure). In theory, our cloud providers can provide that uptime (or so our contract says). Development of our sites has been a nightmare though, the environment seems to lend itself to easily creating all sorts of spaghetti code (not sure yet if that is our relative unfamiliarity with the environment and/or lack of skill from the company we outsourced some of the work to, etc). Really I prefer keeping things in house for more control and flexibility, but I'm outnumbered with that opinion and that definitely isn't the way things are going (at least for us).
A better answer to your question is that the Mark Bretherton (CEO) expresses a reluctance to "upgrade" to digital until digital at least matches the quality of 70mm.
It says he's CEO at IMAX Theatre Sydney, the CEO of Imax Corporation is Richard Gelfond (according to Wikipedia). I'm not entirely sure what that means, is that CEO of an Australian division of Imax, or did they mean that theaters general manager or something similar? I'm glad at least at this location they're keeping 15/70 film, but as a whole Imax has really been in a rush to replace film with digital on screens that are far too big for the 2k resolution of the projectors they use.
I have a hard time believing it's true, but it's damned impressive if it is. Best CGI ever.
There's no motion, just still photos, though. Still impressive, but I think realism with people is a lot easier to achieve when you don't have to also recreate all of the nuances of movement.
I've got a bad feeling about this.