Hear me out here, so I was reading the post, and thus, Chevy, you know the company that had ads with their vehicles doing all sorts of weird high budget ship other than showing the cars drive or handle well, reported loosses.

They have insane advertising budgets, each going over $50 million. Look on youtube for chevy commercials.

The space comercial

The laser Blast commercial

The bungi jump vehicl commercial

The jump over giant skate board commercial.

Even the internation divisions in other countries have insane budgeted commercials.

Do there cars even drive? It's like they are advertising a toy, movie, or something that should not be taken seriosuly as a vehical.

This strategy is hurting them now and only worked for like the first week maybe. This campaign is costing them way to much. Many people won't in the real world, see a commercial with a chevy jumping over a skate board floating in the air, and be like "Honey, we need a chevy." no, it's one of those commericals you should view at night either tired or high off something. (Like adult swim hours on CT)

None of it is effective, the plan could have worked on the short hand, but this is insane. They could loose billions in one year if the plan even backfires around only 40%.

Learn how to advertise a car I say,

In July 1996, Mitt Romney helped locate the missing teenage daughter of a partner at Bain Capital. shows a different side of Romney.

A lot of people talk about Romney being rich and only looking out for his interests, but if that were the case, why would he only take a salary of $1 a year when asked to head a failing company that he turned around as well as when he was governor of Massachusetts. He also didn't take a salary of the corrupt and bankrupt 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics. It is also said that he donated his entire inheritance to BYU.

How many poiticians do not take taxpayer money as their salary? Would Barak Obama give up his yearly salary as President? I am not saying Romney wouldn't, but has Obama not taken a salary or just a token salary of $1 at any point in his working career?

WhiteKnight77

Oh, for the love of all that is holy....

Hallenbeck77

Tylenol with Calius C, a Vitamin that causes a change of blood speed (punping) and getting it to balance to ease pain is safe crrect? People eat tylenol all the time.

Viagara has too many risks.

Tylenol, with the sodium content of drinks like coke, and other dark drinks (only dark drinks) together with tylenol, thin the blood pressure, and thus, drinking maybe one whole cup quickly, and slightly masterbating while doing so bring all that pressure down there. (works for woman to, but slightly different.)

This being faster, more effective, and more safe for the kids. So now those nasty sidefffects go away. Only bad thing that could happen is the sugar in dark sodas if you have diabeties. If you don't know clear flaws are available.

[QUOTE="Reverse-Machete"]GS won't allow long messages, so mods should let this slide one time.Diablo-B

For one thing, the 3D is often associated to be toward virtual holographic route. As that's what it is trying to do. However, it's the HD route that is really the path to the virtual route.

HD tv's when they first came out, and keep in mind 3D already existed, did the whole "I fell like I am in the movie or the guy is really looking at me" better than what 3D did back then.

People brought 3D back but it will never exceed it's 4 main flaws I would like to call the satanic 4. The most you can do is have the glasses see clear without just only seeing red and blue, which has already been done, but it will go no further than that. Why?

1. Frame rate. 24FPS or so is the average for movies, TV processors can not take in all the amount of ram a 3D movie needs to have it run that much. It has to jump cut some of the effects and animations to around 12 FPS or lower. No joke. This is because the effect of using special parralele tube technology, which is only red by the glasses, takes way to much ram. HD movies in high quality, actually have extra room, which can be used in the future to do what 3D is trying to do without the glasses.

2. Visibility. The glasses are the only real way to view all the picture generated from the special vactor tubes from 3D movies. If you were to try to view 3D without glasses nothing happenes. If you try to get the naked eye to see 3D, it will appaer to be a pop-out book with only some looking a bit like it is popping out of you, but the result will be too much for the eye to handle, and the rest will seem flat. Humans can see more than 178FPS plus of HD levels in many circumferences. But they cannot see morethan 20FPS in 3D.

3.Brain effects. 3D can cause more brain pain, migrains, seizures, and even some stress and other injuries due to the amount of light pressure being send through your eye to your brain. This is the equivalent of being hit 60 times by a bat by your little cousin rodny. Or insert name of your little cousin if not Rodny. If you have no little cousin, then pretend you had one hitting you with a bat and name your imaginary cousin Rodney. The brain cannot handle that many hits in a long period of time, and can cause serious injuries to the user.

4.Budget. 3D vecter particles in 3D cameras take more Ram and memory than HD, and 3D takes more space because of this regardless if it does and has less than HD. Including Frame Rates. So it's ineffective and costs more but can't do what HD can do on the same level.

So basically 3D is pointless and not the future of TV. HD is, and that path will lead to the futuristic holographic Tubes that we see in movies.