Here, walk with me through an observation. It's generally presumed that people should be left alone, and be free to do what they want, correct? In other words, we presume that anyone farming their fields anywhere in the world would rather be left to themselves than to be told how they're going to live? Okay, which forms of government are the least meddlesome in individuals' lives but still provide for basic security and services, individual freedom (women's rights, religion, etc.) and so on? For the last hundred or so years democracies have had an good track record in that regard, especially in comparison with the Soviet or Communist Chinese systems, (Stalin and Mao didn't help of course). Also theocracies have been shown to be dangerous to human rights, since one belief system is inflicted upon an entire population, many times victimizing women or minorities.

So the idea is this: Western democracy must survive, not because of some idea of 'fairness' or 'rightness', but because once you consider all the competing systems that will otherwise rule the world, it is the least oppressive.

So when someone says they don't want a dictatorship to have nukes, it's perfectly reasonable to say "It's in the best interest of every individual on the planet that western civilization survives, therefore a dangerous dictatorship shouldn't be allowed to have nukes". You're not looking at the fairness between countries, you're considering the welfare of the common individual, anywhere in the world.

I'm sure you know dictators have no trouble finding external enemies, no matter the time period or which countries happen to exist at the moment. They don't need anyone's help for that. :)

Cheers!

Ok, maybe I'm alone on this one, but when I watch a black & white movie, say, Dr. Strangelove, after about the first 10 minutes I don't consciously notice the "black & white" - I'm absorbed in the story. If I get distracted from the tv for a minute, I'll come back aware that the movie is in black & white, but I don't notice it much during the experience. The characters aren't "less real" because of the presentation.

Now before you call me a geezer I'm under 35, so I promise I'm not doing the "back in my day" thing.

It's just that I've seen many movies in different formats over the years, and like most people this includes everything from grainy cable channels to VHS tapes whose tracking won't settle down. And in every case where the movie is interesting at all, when I get engrossed in the story I don't generally notice the imperfections of the delivery.

This being the case, I feel like 3d is pointless in movies. Since you can't actually change your viewing angle relative to the characters, (which would be cool and actually 3d), it's instead only a depth-perception trick.(!) And worse, as above, if it's not there you don't miss it, and when it is there, if you're involved in the story you stop noticing it until it's rammed down your throat.

I'm not against movies being done in 3d, but I'm certainly not that impressed. The signal to noise, or "hype to reward" ratio is really really low IMHO.

I don't know why that was modded "Flamebait", maybe by a fanboy? Because what he says is true:

I thought it was just my perception while in the store. Well, over christmas I talked to my sister and her husband, (two of the most non-tech savvy people I know, a marketer and a lawyer.... I know). I assumed, being the slave to fashion that my sister is, that she'd have bought an iPhone right when they came out.

Instead, it turned out that both of them commented on the attitude of the Apple store sales people. They went in to buy her an iPhone, and the sales people all had this arrogant attitude about them using windows machines, etc. They were both really put off and left. Mind you - they were prepared to buy an iPhone and possibly a computer that day, and they walked out disgusted.

So 2 months ago, my sister's marketing company bought her a new Apple, and she told them she didn't want it. They gave it to her anyway, and it's been sitting in its box unopened ever since. She went out and bought a 'regular'[sic] laptop with her own money.

Now I'm not saying this to flame or bash Apple. I'm only relating this because Apple should understand that they're losing sales this way. The arrogance probably works to pick up egocentric people to whom a computer is a status symbol, (what's with that?), but they're alienating people who just want a machine to work. It seems that this is the crowd they should be trying to cater to, with all their "it just works" advertising.

If this self-righteous attitude isn't what Apple wants to portray in their stores, then they need to clean house a bit. I've noticed this same thing in a nearby west coast Apple store, and the above story happened in a NY Apple store. If this is the attitude they want to portray, (and I suspect this to be the case,) they're doing a stellar job.