I meant every TV could have "passive" 3D for the cheap. Cheap passive polarized glasses and a single sheet of interlaced polarized plastic on the screen is all you need hardware wise to support 3D signals. Especially considering most 2D TVs can already decode 3D signals into 2D by tossing either the left or right image. Use that pointless smart TV garbage to interlace the left and right image and you have passive 3D support. Not exactly something that causes a large strain on manufacturing, unlike say the tolerances required to support HDR and 4k with a decent refresh rate.

My other half and I actually find that the passive 3D TV causes less eye strain than the 3D projectors they use in the theaters (not sure of the cause).

I bought 2 55" passive 3D TVs from LG, one for the living-room and one for the bedroom. The next year I wanted a 42" for my game-room, and those suckers had more than doubled in price (damn first world problems). So it's pretty obvious to me why people stopped buying them.

um... http://www.urbandictionary.com...

Thanks for your hard work Grammar Nazi. Without your tireless efforts mass chaos would reign (dog and cats living together, and all that jazz).

Dido. I'm dreading the day my family's 3D TVs die. We also only buy movies when they're 3D, everything else is Netflix. My mother enjoyed my 3D TV so much, I set her up with a 3D TV and surround sound in her bedroom so she could have her own private theater like experience. She loves it.

3D is like any other aspect of media, having it done right enhances the experience. No-one wants color, if everything is over saturated, or off hue. Surround sound is pointless, if it's used incorrectly. Etc. etc. Poor media is poor, but 3D done right is brilliant. As much as they gotten better at post processing to not make everything look like a child's pop-up book, nothing beats filming in 3D. You need equipment and director who knows what they're doing, if you want a decent product.

Active 3D glasses pretty much killed 3D TV right out of the gate. Here's something that'll jack up the price by $100-$200 for everyone who wants to watch. Oh and I hope you aren't one of those people who used to get migraines from that fun combination of florescent lights and CRT monitors, because these flickering glasses will make you want to stab your own eyes out. But don't worry, they only go out of sync sometimes, or when the batteries are getting low. Yeah batteries, just what I want, one more thing to fiddle with before I watch. Passive 3D, while not the most ideal, was the way to go. If you can put up with 1080i TV broadcast, this won't bother you either. Passive 3D on a 4k TV, solves almost all problems, and makes all those extra pixels useful. Because, unless your TV is 100 inches or your siting 2 feet away, 4k is pointless.

I know most people will say that they don't care about 3D TV, and useless features just jack up the price (Die smart TVs, DIE!!). But we're getting 4k rammed down our throats like that's something everyone asked for. 3D TV is dead because they want it to be. They priced it out of the market by moving it to the high end only, and instead put that smart bull-crap everywhere. 3D one of those things that could be in every TV with near minimal cost, polarized plastic is cheap. Put a polarized sheet on your TV, and put some cheap polarized glasses in the box.

In the end 3D TV was intentionally over hyped and unintentionally under utilized. I can't want to see how VR plays out...

If people didn't aspire to be morons, where would all the CEOs and middle managment come from? Someone needs to fill those jobs, because no one with a lick of sense or intelligence would ever want them.

Yes, because women could have never developed the necessary sciences ... right?

I'm pretty sure gendercide isn't the bailiwick of either party, left or right. Plus, the quickest way to get to utopia is to get rid off all the people, both genders. No people, no problems.

Believing in an unprovable comforting fantasy causes less stress than facing cruel harsh realty ... SHOCK!

Our government/society once placed constraints on people based on skin color, age, intelligence, faith, and sex. Past actions are not a validation of current or future actions.

The belief that IP rights were placed in the constitution as an incentive for further works is not tenuous. The main proponents at the time were businesses which were seeking to secure their profits, colorful language of the result not withstanding. Whether a large portion of the population agrees with such things, does not make it just.

I would assert that it is perfectly reasonable that one retain attribution to one's work, and allowing one to claim dominion over similar work is unreasonable. The first is an acknowledgement of a member's contribution to society, the second is detrimental to society, as this allows a single person who has benefited from society to hold the future of the rest of society hostage for their own purpose. Allowing one person to hold the future of others hostage is unreasonable and unfair. I have no problem with society continuing to reward contributing individuals, in any fashion, as long as it is not detrimental to others. Rich or poor, no one is more deserving than another, it is only the contribution that matters.

The idea that a company should be granted such rights, it is also unjust. Individuals are the source of creation, the company may be entitled to a majority of any reward/royalties but, attribution belongs to those who did the work. To pretend that an employer is the source of such effort is fraudulent. Drawing a line between a creator and a worker would still have to be drawn.

Whether such rewards for creation be lifetime or limited is debatable based on the value to society. Those who cure and those who entertain, fall on different ends of the scale.

If you create a cure for cancer, I would not deny you your reward, in fact such a thing may warrant some form of monetary reward for your whole life. I would deny you dominion to decide when/who makes it, and therefore who might receive it. If you create wonderful novel, you should be rewarded for contribution, and to a small part that of any derivative works. How such things could be setup and fairly measured and rewarded is a much harder question, than the fairness of what we have today, companies raping artists for all they're worth, with a few outliers.

The current system is an injustice but, so many things are. There is no perfect solution but, when problems in the current system are ignored so that a few may benefit, that is what causes people to seek redress. Perceived injustice will always drive people to right such things in a manner they feel acceptable. Dismissing those wishing for more a more just system as acting in their own self-interest ignores those who have benefited from acting in the own self interest in an unjust system. All are acting in self-interest but, the scales are not even.

"The same information in a plot of steadily increasing average personal income over 3 years—$32,400, $33,100, $33,800—can also be expressed as a steadily decreasing rate of growth—3%, 2.3%, 2.1%. That did the trick. Just changing the units of the data was enough to cure voter fickleness. When economic trends were expressed as yearly income rather than rates of change, the subjects made accurate judgments. But if the same information was expressed as a change over time—the bias reappeared."

So people aren't very good at taking the derivative values and integrating them to find the original values for mental comparision. I'm shocked... At least it wasn't wasted research, we've learned that even the researches are oblivious to already known truths.

You cannot create anything in a vacuum. Your time and resources may be of your own but, your effort is build upon the effort of those who came before you. Asking for repayment of your time and resources is reasonable. Asking for indefinite repayment on all similar creations, while holding to the naive idea that all effort was yours alone, is disingenuous if not fraudulent. If you have enhanced society with your contributed effort then, society should reward you.

The only debate is the terms of that reward, nothing more, nothing less. The false notion that effort entitles one to complete dominion over similar effort is new, relatively speaking, and not universally agreed upon as being reasonable. I would argue that, monetary rewards be the only reward, and that false dominion is for those who are selfish and lack awareness.

An honest man borrows and stands on the shoulders of others. A dishonest man claims he alone is the progenitor. See original quote.

From your previous statements, it would seem you are dishonest, if not selfish ... or I'm reading into this too much.

I've never heard of such a thing, all my broken clocks just have a blank displays.

Comparing faith to alcohol is completely fair. Some moderate use is tolerable. Excessive use results in fanatics and fundamentalists, two groups whose direct and indirect effects are obvious to all. A high functioning alcoholic is still an alcoholic. Someone who believes in immateriality can be anything from a minor annoyance to a sever danger to others. You are correct, lumping an entire spectrum of people into one out-lier is unfair. It is the shared features of the entire group that must be argued for or against. Belief in immateriality should never be given deference, no matter the belief, or size of the group. This is where religion differs from delusion. It's adherents demand respect in the least and subjugation in the worst, and this is mostly accepted in an attempt to validate ones own religion.

Your definition of religion seems to be entirely subjective. One such that only the traits that you find desirable are assigned. This is the same argument as above. You cannot take one out-lier and redefine the whole group by it. This seems the be an attempt to white wash.

You seem to have made the assumption that religious texts are not something that originated from the human mind. This is patently false. Even assuming that original texts are divinely inspired, all religious texts have apocrypha, things that have been removed or edited. The human mind has been the editor for God. One could say that such actions remove any such original authority, as the resulting texts are usually full of contradictions, rendering the original intent obscured and useless.

Claiming a belief of what is moral or immoral without backing evidence can be called the main crux of the previous argument. Remember, morality is weighing of actions in an attempt to produce the least harm. Something can only be considered more moral if it produces less harm than a competing action. Measuring harm has both objective and subjective components. The subjective components are so varied, from person to person and society to society, that they may be best left unresolved. In fact the current abortion debates almost completely focus on the subjective components, at least from the religious side. This is why the debate can never be resolved. Two sides mostly arguing different types of points, one subjective, and the other objective.

You may believe whatever you believe as all should, but you should not be afforded any deference for your belief. Your actions are what ultimately define you. People of faith deserve no special treatment, only what they do is of consequence. That they act in concerted groups just makes them easy targets. Yet, the abolishing of faith would not solve the problems of deferring view points, it would only solve the problem of intractable positions, at least partially.

It's the excuse that is inexcusable. Anyone who wishes to make use of this, or other research, has to have a lab and funding, whether nefarious or not. If you have that level of resources, you can bribe people, infiltrate, recreate the research from scratch, etc. Pretending that hiding the information from general scientific publication is a form of security is delusional at best and intellectually dishonest at worst.

He who has the gold, makes the rule?

The amount of infringement is a direct result of market forces: copying technology becoming cheaper, prices growing beyond inflation, etc. You can create as many laws as you wish to rig the system in your favor and then cry foul when anyone suggests change otherwise, it isn't moral or immoral, it's just selfish. Not that people wanting things for free or cheaper aren't selfish, they are just incapable of rigging the game.

By your logic, borrowing is the same as infringement, which you equate to “taking money out of the hands of the crews that work on movies”. As borrowing DVDs prevents the people that work in the industry from receive payment for it's use. I would dare to say that infringement is the same as borrowing, but not that same as robbery. The only difference between borrowing and infringement is the time scale involved. Except for the times when use overlaps between both parties, it is identical to borrowing with a transfer time of zero. The potential chance of overlap could be small, in the case of a movie, or large, in that case of an OS. So outlawing infringement is an attempt to ensure that the potential of overlap is zero. It's usefulness is debatable depending upon the lifetime, duration, primary and secondary effects, etc. All of these things should be debated.

Piracy is the act of monetizing the creation of copies, unauthorized by the creator. It is a direct attempt to cannibalize an existing market through the use of infringement, typically. Please stop conflating infringement and piracy. No-one has argued for piracy, at least I don't think so...

And the current state of affairs is also completely irrational and ridiculous. The fact that you didn't mention this shows that it's true.

Flawed logic, letting people says crazy shit since 212345 BC, now in digital form, get yours today, only 29.95!