Yeah, I've lost NBC for good due to the digital conversion; nothing I could do would get me more than a screen full of squares. I live in an apartment complex, so mounting a real rooftop antenna is out of the question.
I did, thanks to this, discover that I can greatly increase my antenna's signal by placing my wok behind it. I guess a wok is close enough to a parabolic reflector to function as one. I have to do that to be able to watch Fringe, which amuses me.
Resolution is hugely overemphasized. Everything else being equal, higher resolution is nice... but not nearly as important as decent animation, decent art design, decent framerate, and so on.
Look at a DVD. Resolution of 720x480, but they can look nicer than nearly any videogame. I think resolution is always talked about because it's such a simple quantifiable attribute to measure.
What it's missing are straightforward straight-line and square/rectangle/circle tools.
I fear they're missing for deliberate-yet-inane ideological reasons. The functionality is there, accessible through hotkeys applied in nonsensical ways; the designers seem to think a button to draw a line or shape is... somehow an undesirable compromise. It's been requested for years, but never been added, even through major UI redesigns.
It's also a "post to Twitter," with equal validity. That also is a more professional and timeless way to refer to a "tweet". There is a difference between casual and formal writing.
The NYT also doesn't use "googled" as a verb, nor should they. They don't use "torrented", and they don't even use "chick", preferring to use the term "woman". They don't use the same casual slang and jargon that you or I use in common everyday speech, and they're right in avoiding that.
So you've seen manifestations of a condition which you deny exists? Fascinating.
He's seen manifestations of personality traits, nothing else. If you want to give a mix of selfishness, awkwardness, and shyness a name and classify it as a syndrome, go ahead; but it's meaningless definition shuffling.
Actionscript 3.0 is a MUCH better language for writing large applications than javascript is. So is C#. Silverlight and Flash both have a future, as the web is moving towards more in the way of large internet applications, not less.
I agree with that. Javascript isn't as bad as many make it out to be, but Actionscript 3.0 is much better, and deserves more love.
Saying that Flash performance is "smoother" than HTML5 is a joke. It blows it out of the water. Don't believe it? Do some research. Now that mobile platforms are becoming more important, CPU usage is going to become more critical. Apple complains about Flash's cpu usage... what they're not telling you is that if all of this content now rendered in Flash was rendered in HTML, things would be much, much worse, both in terms of customer experience and battery life.
True, too... but that may change over the next few years. Browsers seem to be turning into JIT compilers, and I wouldn't be surprised to see HTML basically compiled into some form of bytecode as it's loaded, like the trend with javascript.
I think the biggest reasons Flash will be around and dominant for at least five more years are:
1. Content protection and control. While you can get to Flash data, streams, and code, it's less trivially easy to do than it will be with HTML5.
2. Development tools. The flash IDE from Adobe is impressive. Sure, there may be alternatives created for HTML5, but we might be looking at a GIMP vs Photoshop comparison; GIMP is a decent program, and you can do most everything you need, but it isn't CLOSE to dethroning Photoshop. What's to bar Adobe from releasing the Flash IDE for, say, free for individual use, $100 for commercial? They would certainly do that rather than see the whole format fail.
You see on "the internet" the VAST MAJORITY of websites that use flash would not (by any sane or right-minded person) be classified as "drop-dead gorgeous". In fact many of them are aberrations of nature.
And would be just as bad if written purely in HTML5.
only to those too stupid to leap ahead with out thinking.
No, there are unforeseen consequences that even the smartest, most meticulous, slashdotter can't plan. The world's entire ecosystem, taken as a whole, is chaotic, and the exact results of your actions CAN'T be predicted. Burning an acre of woods may hurt the forest, or it may make it healthier... or perhaps the outcome depends on the number of honeybees in the vicinity that season. We can make educated forecasts, but they're purely statistical.
Humans killing (read: driving to extinction) other species is no longer beneficial to our evolution.
How do you know that?
I'm sure you're probably right, or right about most species, but I think the whole system is too chaotic for you to make that point as an absolute truth. Some extinctions have been GREAT for humanity (or at least mammals in general).
I would love a government that had "I won't do shit!" as their main motto. The trouble with Obama is the same as Bush... they keep on doing shit. Give me a stalled, gridlocked, ineffectual government anyday over what we've got now.
A general purpose input, it is not. But if Wacom can make their existence dependent on adding a stylus to a computer, there IS in fact a demographic that WANTS one.
I've replaced the mice on both my desktops with wacom tablets. I far prefer the stylus to a mouse, and don't think you lose anything by going to them. They aren't a replacement for a keyboard, that's true.
Yes, maybe this doesn't matter at all. You go ahead and prove that. Meanwhile, the evidence suggests that looks do matter, just like we already know race and gender matters.
No, he doesn't have to prove it. The burden of proof is on the one doing the asserting. He's pointed out that the scientists failed in their assertion; they've proven something OTHER than what they claim to.
You should a child rapist be put in prison for any longer than any other sort of rapist?
Yes. There are more criminal, moral, and social problems with child rape than adult rape. Raping a child is an abuse of authority. It also is a sign that the perpetrator is a far more disturbed and antisocial individual, and hence more of a danger to all of us.
I don't really mind swearing, and occasionally let loose. However, I do find it... perhaps childish?...when people find something funny simply because a fuck was added into the mix. Look at this thread: Dozens of comments that are basically contentless, modded +5 funny because they have 'fucking' in them. I don't find it offensive, just juvenile and lame, like kids giggling after they say 'poop'.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure the second point is valid. I took "Queue the debate:" as direction for the debaters to begin lining up after his post.
God forbid somebody sees you watching a Pixar movie, right? They might think you're not all grown up.
You're deliberately isolating yourself from rewarding experiences out of insecurity.
If you were a grown man, you'd know.
Only immature people feel the way you do. Try a little independence.
Yeah, I've lost NBC for good due to the digital conversion; nothing I could do would get me more than a screen full of squares. I live in an apartment complex, so mounting a real rooftop antenna is out of the question.
I did, thanks to this, discover that I can greatly increase my antenna's signal by placing my wok behind it. I guess a wok is close enough to a parabolic reflector to function as one. I have to do that to be able to watch Fringe, which amuses me.
Resolution is hugely overemphasized. Everything else being equal, higher resolution is nice... but not nearly as important as decent animation, decent art design, decent framerate, and so on.
Look at a DVD. Resolution of 720x480, but they can look nicer than nearly any videogame. I think resolution is always talked about because it's such a simple quantifiable attribute to measure.
Weak digital tv weak analog tv
it's not even close
Weak digital is FAR worse than weak analog. If that's what you mean, I agree.
What it's missing are straightforward straight-line and square/rectangle/circle tools.
I fear they're missing for deliberate-yet-inane ideological reasons. The functionality is there, accessible through hotkeys applied in nonsensical ways; the designers seem to think a button to draw a line or shape is... somehow an undesirable compromise. It's been requested for years, but never been added, even through major UI redesigns.
My Dreamcast works flawlessly still. And you can legally download any game for it from here http://www.dcisozone.com/
Legally? Of course not.
Good site, though.
It's also a "post to Twitter," with equal validity. That also is a more professional and timeless way to refer to a "tweet". There is a difference between casual and formal writing.
The NYT also doesn't use "googled" as a verb, nor should they. They don't use "torrented", and they don't even use "chick", preferring to use the term "woman". They don't use the same casual slang and jargon that you or I use in common everyday speech, and they're right in avoiding that.
black people are about 13% of the US population yet they appear in easily 80% of TV commercials
.21
If there's an average of 11 people in a TV commercial, that number makes perfect sense. 0.87 ^ 11 =
At 14, it was long past the time to grow the fuck up.
Only children are concerned about such things. When do you plan on growing up?
So you've seen manifestations of a condition which you deny exists? Fascinating.
He's seen manifestations of personality traits, nothing else. If you want to give a mix of selfishness, awkwardness, and shyness a name and classify it as a syndrome, go ahead; but it's meaningless definition shuffling.
Squeeze?
Rimmer IS NOT an "Everyman", he's an effeminate elitist boob with delusions of grandeur.
British, in other words.
Actionscript 3.0 is a MUCH better language for writing large applications than javascript is. So is C#. Silverlight and Flash both have a future, as the web is moving towards more in the way of large internet applications, not less.
I agree with that. Javascript isn't as bad as many make it out to be, but Actionscript 3.0 is much better, and deserves more love.
Saying that Flash performance is "smoother" than HTML5 is a joke. It blows it out of the water. Don't believe it? Do some research. Now that mobile platforms are becoming more important, CPU usage is going to become more critical. Apple complains about Flash's cpu usage... what they're not telling you is that if all of this content now rendered in Flash was rendered in HTML, things would be much, much worse, both in terms of customer experience and battery life.
True, too... but that may change over the next few years. Browsers seem to be turning into JIT compilers, and I wouldn't be surprised to see HTML basically compiled into some form of bytecode as it's loaded, like the trend with javascript.
I think the biggest reasons Flash will be around and dominant for at least five more years are:
1. Content protection and control. While you can get to Flash data, streams, and code, it's less trivially easy to do than it will be with HTML5.
2. Development tools. The flash IDE from Adobe is impressive. Sure, there may be alternatives created for HTML5, but we might be looking at a GIMP vs Photoshop comparison; GIMP is a decent program, and you can do most everything you need, but it isn't CLOSE to dethroning Photoshop. What's to bar Adobe from releasing the Flash IDE for, say, free for individual use, $100 for commercial? They would certainly do that rather than see the whole format fail.
You see on "the internet" the VAST MAJORITY of websites that use flash would not (by any sane or right-minded person) be classified as "drop-dead gorgeous". In fact many of them are aberrations of nature.
And would be just as bad if written purely in HTML5.
only to those too stupid to leap ahead with out thinking.
No, there are unforeseen consequences that even the smartest, most meticulous, slashdotter can't plan. The world's entire ecosystem, taken as a whole, is chaotic, and the exact results of your actions CAN'T be predicted. Burning an acre of woods may hurt the forest, or it may make it healthier... or perhaps the outcome depends on the number of honeybees in the vicinity that season. We can make educated forecasts, but they're purely statistical.
Humans killing (read: driving to extinction) other species is no longer beneficial to our evolution.
How do you know that?
I'm sure you're probably right, or right about most species, but I think the whole system is too chaotic for you to make that point as an absolute truth. Some extinctions have been GREAT for humanity (or at least mammals in general).
I would love a government that had "I won't do shit!" as their main motto. The trouble with Obama is the same as Bush... they keep on doing shit. Give me a stalled, gridlocked, ineffectual government anyday over what we've got now.
A general purpose input, it is not. But if Wacom can make their existence dependent on adding a stylus to a computer, there IS in fact a demographic that WANTS one.
I've replaced the mice on both my desktops with wacom tablets. I far prefer the stylus to a mouse, and don't think you lose anything by going to them. They aren't a replacement for a keyboard, that's true.
Such websites would be illegal in Texas
Of course that's not true, and nobody believes you.
Yes, maybe this doesn't matter at all. You go ahead and prove that. Meanwhile, the evidence suggests that looks do matter, just like we already know race and gender matters.
No, he doesn't have to prove it. The burden of proof is on the one doing the asserting. He's pointed out that the scientists failed in their assertion; they've proven something OTHER than what they claim to.
You should a child rapist be put in prison for any longer than any other sort of rapist?
Yes. There are more criminal, moral, and social problems with child rape than adult rape. Raping a child is an abuse of authority. It also is a sign that the perpetrator is a far more disturbed and antisocial individual, and hence more of a danger to all of us.
Now do a list like that for all other countries. You can.
I don't really mind swearing, and occasionally let loose. However, I do find it... perhaps childish? ...when people find something funny simply because a fuck was added into the mix. Look at this thread: Dozens of comments that are basically contentless, modded +5 funny because they have 'fucking' in them. I don't find it offensive, just juvenile and lame, like kids giggling after they say 'poop'.