This story must have been written by a journalist clueless in the ways of technology. How does storing a hard drive in a salt mine any more costly than storing a film version? Where does the extra electricity come in?
Have one primary version, make a backup (or 2 or 3) and put them in storage. If you're paranoid, verify and/or re-duplicate every few years. The cost of verifying regularly vs reconstructing degraded film should be a wash at worst. It should easily favor the digital versions.
She paid $36k for a CRT projector.. L A M E
$10k would've gotten her a killer LCD or DLP projector (only the 3-chip DLPs are worth anything, but $10k would get her one).
LoL I got this story and the story about the translucent-headed sucking dinosaur mixed up at first. Kids, let Gene Simmons be a poster boy for what happens when you smoke too much crack.
You might want to do a *little* more research before turning on the flames. You only embarass yourself.
The other poster was referring to 1080i60 (interlaced content @ 60fps). Content in this format is identical to 1080p30 or 1080p24, depending on the master material.
Personally I'm not a fan of interlaced content either, but there are some applications where it's useful.
The article has alot of breadth, but is a bit misleading due to its lack of depth. For example, they gloss over the different projector technologies. They really don't say much about DLP rainbow artifacts, or that DLP suffers from poor color accuracy. DLP does offer high contrast, but at the expense of brightness.
They don't mention the recent generation (starting from ~2 years ago) of LCD front projectors that virtually eliminate screen door effects. I'd wager that a $1500 Panasonic AE1000 would give that Sorny $3000 LCOS a run for its money and maybe outperform it in some areas. Projector Central has really comprehensive reviews:
http://www.projectorcentral.com/sony_vw50.htm
I will grant them that for a "reference" theater, $3k is not too unreasonable to spend on the display. Just more than I would like to:)
Regarding speakers, that's a very subjective topic. Even taking a CD to a store and listening to their speakers doesn't give an entirely accurate represetnation of how they'll perform in *your* home. Rooms and settings are different, receivers/amps are different. Plus, the biggest thing with quality speakers that few people mention is that it takes time for the speakers to settle in. It sounds strange (pun intended), but it's true. When I first bought my Polk RT-55's, they sounded good and I was happy enough with them. After a year I noticed that they sounded richer and fuller. It's difficult to describe, but it was a substantial enough improvement that I noticed it, and that's saying something.
Overall it's a good read, but take their info with a grain of salt.
Yes I read your entire post. How did you assume otherwise? Your type of argument is a tired, last resort by those who deny overwhelming evidence (correlation causation). The murder analogy was just that, an analogy, but instead of addressing the issue you tried to further your sad causation argument.
Discuss the subject instead of the analogy and maybe you won't get so confused.
Similar to most of the spin doctors in the oil industry, you conveniently fail to consider one critical factor. Climate change is potentially devastating to our lives on this planet as we know it. A single murder victim has far less of an impact on mankind and we have the luxury of time to deliberate it. We don't have such a luxury with our planet's ecosystem. Once it's screwed up, we all pay the price in human suffering. Even if there's only a minute chance that greenhouse gases are contributing to the rise in temps, we have no choice but to remedy that. Well, we do have a choice to do nothing, which the oil tycoons are all too happy to endorse. They are purely motivated by profits and don't care about what happens to life on this planet more than a decade out.
Scientists have already performed countless simluations of greenouse gases' effects on our planet. If you want to discard that evidence, that's our own problem, but don't go spouting off nonsense saying that there's not enough evidence. Go find your own planet and experiment on it yourself by choking it full of CO2. When you find out what happens, report back to us.
This is what happens when corporations are allowed to circumvent the moral and ethical fabric of our country. It's what happens when Bush & cronies overturn environmental laws for the sake of special interest profits. Ironically, those same clowns try to claim that they're the beacons of morality in this country. They will burn, karma will be served.
Thankfully, the ROHS initiative has significantly reduced or eliminated heavy metals and toxic chemicals in electronics. The 3rd world population should be grateful for that industry initiative. There's still a long line of non-ROHS equipment that's heading to the scrapheap, but at least after a few years it will have been processed through.
I think that realistically, Perl is not a good language for serious programming. It is so convoluted and cryptic that code that you wrote a a year ago is almost unintelligible. I have programmed with Perl for some complex projects and at the time the code was clear to me. Perl doesn't lend itself to self-documented code, so you'd have to be a commenting nazi to be able to understand it enough to maintain the code a year or more later. Granted, there are OOP libraries for Perl that make it much more like a "real" programming language. But those libraries aren't part of the base language and there's little uniformity to it. You might as well use C++ or Java and be done with it.
I'm sure some will disagree with me. I tried to like Perl back in the day. It's tailored for quick & dirty scripts, not complex applications.
Slashdot Mirror
This story must have been written by a journalist clueless in the ways of technology. How does storing a hard drive in a salt mine any more costly than storing a film version? Where does the extra electricity come in? Have one primary version, make a backup (or 2 or 3) and put them in storage. If you're paranoid, verify and/or re-duplicate every few years. The cost of verifying regularly vs reconstructing degraded film should be a wash at worst. It should easily favor the digital versions.
She paid $36k for a CRT projector.. L A M E $10k would've gotten her a killer LCD or DLP projector (only the 3-chip DLPs are worth anything, but $10k would get her one).
Get a super cheap, low power PC, hook up internal and/or external drive(s) and run any software you want on it to perform backups.
LoL I got this story and the story about the translucent-headed sucking dinosaur mixed up at first. Kids, let Gene Simmons be a poster boy for what happens when you smoke too much crack.
He predicted the Dvorak keyboard would be successful. Look how far that went :P
You might want to do a *little* more research before turning on the flames. You only embarass yourself.
The other poster was referring to 1080i60 (interlaced content @ 60fps). Content in this format is identical to 1080p30 or 1080p24, depending on the master material.
Personally I'm not a fan of interlaced content either, but there are some applications where it's useful.
err... I meant the Panasonic AX100, not the pricier AE1000 :|
zzz
The article has alot of breadth, but is a bit misleading due to its lack of depth. For example, they gloss over the different projector technologies. They really don't say much about DLP rainbow artifacts, or that DLP suffers from poor color accuracy. DLP does offer high contrast, but at the expense of brightness. They don't mention the recent generation (starting from ~2 years ago) of LCD front projectors that virtually eliminate screen door effects. I'd wager that a $1500 Panasonic AE1000 would give that Sorny $3000 LCOS a run for its money and maybe outperform it in some areas. Projector Central has really comprehensive reviews: http://www.projectorcentral.com/sony_vw50.htm I will grant them that for a "reference" theater, $3k is not too unreasonable to spend on the display. Just more than I would like to :)
Regarding speakers, that's a very subjective topic. Even taking a CD to a store and listening to their speakers doesn't give an entirely accurate represetnation of how they'll perform in *your* home. Rooms and settings are different, receivers/amps are different. Plus, the biggest thing with quality speakers that few people mention is that it takes time for the speakers to settle in. It sounds strange (pun intended), but it's true. When I first bought my Polk RT-55's, they sounded good and I was happy enough with them. After a year I noticed that they sounded richer and fuller. It's difficult to describe, but it was a substantial enough improvement that I noticed it, and that's saying something.
Overall it's a good read, but take their info with a grain of salt.
Something... smells like.. bacon!
Yes I read your entire post. How did you assume otherwise? Your type of argument is a tired, last resort by those who deny overwhelming evidence (correlation causation). The murder analogy was just that, an analogy, but instead of addressing the issue you tried to further your sad causation argument. Discuss the subject instead of the analogy and maybe you won't get so confused.
Similar to most of the spin doctors in the oil industry, you conveniently fail to consider one critical factor. Climate change is potentially devastating to our lives on this planet as we know it. A single murder victim has far less of an impact on mankind and we have the luxury of time to deliberate it. We don't have such a luxury with our planet's ecosystem. Once it's screwed up, we all pay the price in human suffering. Even if there's only a minute chance that greenhouse gases are contributing to the rise in temps, we have no choice but to remedy that. Well, we do have a choice to do nothing, which the oil tycoons are all too happy to endorse. They are purely motivated by profits and don't care about what happens to life on this planet more than a decade out. Scientists have already performed countless simluations of greenouse gases' effects on our planet. If you want to discard that evidence, that's our own problem, but don't go spouting off nonsense saying that there's not enough evidence. Go find your own planet and experiment on it yourself by choking it full of CO2. When you find out what happens, report back to us.
This is what happens when corporations are allowed to circumvent the moral and ethical fabric of our country. It's what happens when Bush & cronies overturn environmental laws for the sake of special interest profits. Ironically, those same clowns try to claim that they're the beacons of morality in this country. They will burn, karma will be served.
Thankfully, the ROHS initiative has significantly reduced or eliminated heavy metals and toxic chemicals in electronics. The 3rd world population should be grateful for that industry initiative. There's still a long line of non-ROHS equipment that's heading to the scrapheap, but at least after a few years it will have been processed through.
I think that realistically, Perl is not a good language for serious programming. It is so convoluted and cryptic that code that you wrote a a year ago is almost unintelligible. I have programmed with Perl for some complex projects and at the time the code was clear to me. Perl doesn't lend itself to self-documented code, so you'd have to be a commenting nazi to be able to understand it enough to maintain the code a year or more later.
Granted, there are OOP libraries for Perl that make it much more like a "real" programming language. But those libraries aren't part of the base language and there's little uniformity to it. You might as well use C++ or Java and be done with it.
I'm sure some will disagree with me. I tried to like Perl back in the day. It's tailored for quick & dirty scripts, not complex applications.