Well, its like getting 50 teenagers into a mini.

These days, here's the thought train that Linux comes with: Linux->Open Source->XMBC->Linux MCE->Android->CHDK->Tomato,DDWRT->KDE->Firefox->VLC->Git->Linus->his blog->stuckincustoms->photography->digiKam->Picasa->WINE->games on Linux->how much things have changed. After that, it gets pretty random :)

Yes, Yes, Yes, Oh god yes!

Honestly, give up on Kubuntu if you want to use KDE. In fact, even using Ubuntu + KDE which was more stable than Kubuntu in my experience, I still had to manually customize a heap of stuff and it felt flaky. Then I switched to OpenSuse 11.2. Bliss I tell you. It is KDE how KDE should be done. I didn't have to tweak anything - even Firefox fitted in from the get go. Give OpenSuse a try. Those guys know what KDE should feel like and it shows when you use their distro.

Its simply because the older we get the more we are able to focus. Kids are inherently more distracted. The more we get absorbed in a task, the faster time seems to pass. As we get older, we involve ourselves in a lot of stuff.

Very true. A hostile environment for the sperm has been proven to result in a ratio of females to males that is greater than one. A friendly environment will bring the ratio to less than one.

But that's my point - in the real world, the objects themselves are always sharp - it is up to you to direct your eyes and focus on one object while blurring out the others. The 3D was so convincing that it made you want to look around - a natural human reaction, but you couldn't, because what you wanted to look at was blurred. It is the lack of freedom of being able to look around in what otherwise seemed a beautiful 3D world that really took away a lot of the immersion.

Reminds me of a line from "V". "They're using the most powerful weapon - devotion"

Am I the only one who read Hillary Clinton but thought Hilarious Clinton?

Because they tested slow movement. How many times have you moved your finger that slowly? To me, its an edge case as far as use cases go. That's why I'm skeptical.

I have a problem with that test - it does not measure perceived accuracy. They used a paint program to draw straight lines. While that is a good test of the accuracy of the physical device, is that really a good test of the perceived accuracy? The perceived accuracy is what matters to most people. The iPhone may be able to draw straighter lines, but if the Android device feels more responsive and feels more accurate, then that's the one that's more accurate. I guess its like comparing two toys - while one may be made of better materials, etc etc, if the other one is more fun, then people will gravitate to it. As much as I hate it, being an audio guy myself, a system that delivers louder music with a more punchy bass is usually more appealing to people, though it makes my skin crawl when I think that using that system, you will never hear a piece of music the way the artist intended. I think its a similar thing here. If the android devices feel better, they will be more popular. That's it.

We'd all just like to know :)

The CG effects were worth every penny. I saw it in IMAX 3D and wished I hadn't. The depth factor makes you want to focus to other things in the background because they are so beautifully done. Only, you can't, because they're blurred out by the camera that's focusing on the actor's face, which in my opinion was a lot less watchable than the beautiful detail in the background. Note to film makers: if you're going to make it viewable in 3D, PLEASE keep everything in focus so that the audience can choose what they would like to focus on. It multiplies the immersion factor. Keeping the background out of focus is telling your viewer, "this is not 3D because you can only look at what I want you to look at". That's ok to do in 2D, but not when the perception of depth is that much more pronounced. That's the impression I came away with, anyway. PS> If they do release a 3D version where everything is in focus, I'd watch it again and a few more times in a heartbeat. As of now though, I could have spent that money and time on better things.

Actually, I think it will. The difference between 2D and the perceived 3D the glasses offer is enough that people will be willing to put up with the glasses, __ as long as they look good wearing them and as long as the glasses are comfortable __ . I mean, people all over the world are perfectly fine with wearing glasses so they can see clearer. The trade off - asking them to don glasses for a couple of hours for a much more immersive entertainment experience - is not really that big an ask. In addition, the next stumbling block would be the kind of VR sickness you get from too much 3D content if the camera angles don't co-incide with what your eyes are used to. I'm thinking of watching stuff like the Lord Of The Rings Trilogy in 3D. Its tiring enough watching them back to back in 2D :) Finally, I think the glasses will be temporary. In fact, I suspect there already are practical solutions that don't require glasses (if you take SIGGraph from 10 years ago as any kind of indication). Its just that the consumer is being made to shell out for incremental upgrades.