Re: Re: So, just how far away will you have to sit from your gigantic television to stop seeing pixels at 1080p? Is your living room that large?
Ah, no. It doesn't matter how small the pixels are, all it matters is how BIG they are. Because you just don't want to see the pixels.
They can be as small as they want (and, with analogue films, they're really really tiny, they're the film grain), and you don't need to sit any closer because of that.
Of course, there could be more details to be seen if you go to the border where you nearly can see individual pixels, and it makes economical sense not to have pixels so small you can't discern them anyway, no matter the distance.
So for 136cm diagonal at 3m, 1080p is only "optimal" in the sense that you don't "waste" any resolution. Lean forward and you'll see pixels, go backward and the field of view gets smaller.
An d actually, Macauley was right with absolutely all of his predictions:
And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the words of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living.
And, something these "get-rid-of-non-trade-barriers" guys don't seem to factor in, is that these are often the work of democracies. That is, these have sometimes been the work of the actual citizens demanding these barriers, not just some government agency mandating it.
So if the majority of the population is opposed to allowing genetically modified foodstuffs, what do you think the majority of the population will want to eat when the barrier falls?
It is difficult to see how anyone can support such blatant destruction of culture.
Oh yes, I can.
Old works are essentially competition to newly released ones.
So if they can get "Starship Troopers" for free instead of paying for "Ender's Game", that's obviously a situation detrimental to the income of the author of the latter work and fixed by not letting "Starship Troopers" become public domain.
Actually, some Danish police officers already saw this as well, and are putting up resistance against the law.
One guy noted: "I've not become police officer to rob refugees" and that his grandparents had been in the Danish resistance (against the Nazis) and would not have appreciated his grandson "breaking gold teeth out of the mouth or extracting valuables out of the underwear of refugees".
I mean it's an interesting question, insofar as there are actually law-enforcement procedures that rob people of their freedom and make them work.
However, what happens if that "slavery" suddenly isn't applied to convicted people, but against anybody, or even everybody?
This is a very similar situation as we have with surveillance. not only that it robs people of their freedom, but it's also one of those things that only law-enforcement used to be allowed to do, and only on probably cause with a judge signing off, but now, apparently, some people think it's a somehow ok to enslave the whole world. Pardon, put the whole world under surveillance; as if there is a difference...
As far as I can see, the strategy is to have one candidate that the majority considers totally un-electable, so they will instead elect the other jerk, which has basically the same views but hides them better. Within the republican party of course, but not really limited to it:
If it turns out to be Trump vs. Clinton; Clinton will win, and the end-result is just what was intended: The authoritarians win.
Same as happened with Obama vs. Romney. Or Obama vs. McCain (although this one was a bit different: Whereas McCain clearly was a decoy, Obama not only presented the saner choice, but also pretended to be the opposite of what he was or became).
The only remotely interesting situation (which might, just might, lead the USA again away from their path towards fascism) would be something like Sanders vs Stein vs. Rand. Anything else, and the bigger authoritarian (prohibitionist, slave-holder, war-monger, spook, ... ) will win.
A Free Trade agreement? Gosh, that would be a novelty.
It could contain things like - outlawing geoblocking - outlawing price-fixing on a country basis - outlawing the outlawing of parallel imports - mandating maximum inter-bank transfer fees - mandating maximum mobile interconnect fees - mandating maximum limits in duration and scope of artificial government-granted monopolies (like copyright or patents). - mandating minimum standards on privacy protection (like not allowing an entity to collect more data than needed for a business transaction; or like not allowing any government entity to access personal data from other entities without a warrant) - outlawing special treatment of internet traffic on the basis of one of the endpoints.
What a nice idea. Why didn't any of these so-called "free-market" types get that idea yet?
I'm always wondering. Isn't there some law such as "Sachzusammenhang" (the law must only pertain to a certain matter) when making laws?
Because here in most European countries (apparently not the EU), it's usually mandatory that a law only pertains to a certain matter. You can't put a gun control law into an act aimed at guaranteeing pensions.
Armed rebellions and insurrections are quite pointless, unless you get the majority of people on your side. That doesn't mean they have to agree or even participate in your insurrection; but they have to agree with your goal.
And if the majority would agree with you, Obama would not have gotten a second term, and congress would look quite different. Which would completely alleviate the need for any insurrection in the first place.
Of course, this is assuming you want to achieve any goal that can be classified as something involving more freedom.
If you just want to enact some totalitarian state, you don't need the support of a majority. You only need enough forces to overthrow the governments forces. See ISIS.
So the only option really is to get people to think, and to value freedom more than they're getting made fearful by government propaganda.