How is 720p a degrade from 1080i when 720p requires a higher data rate?
Wrong. Native resolution of 720p is 1280x720. Native resolution of 1080i is 1920x1080. From a pure number of pixels perspective, 720p has 921,600 pixels x 60 Hz = 55,296,000 pixels of data per second. 1080i has 2,457,600 pixels x 60 Hz / 2 (interlaced) = 73,728,000 pixels of data per second, requiring 33% more bandwidth.
Of course, this doesn't take into account MPEG compression, but even with compression, 1080i requires a lot more bandwidth (I assume ~33% more).
DTV != HDTV. The cheap or free tuners (after coupon) are not high definition, they are only standard.
You need to clarify your statement here. The converter boxes are required to down-convert all ATSC digital channels, both HDTV and SDTV, including 16x9 1080i, using an analog connection (RF, composite, or S-Video) to a TV/VCR/display. RF and composite connectors are required of all converter boxes available thru this program. S-Video connections are permitted, but anything higher than S-Video (specifically DVI, HDMI, Component, Ethernet, Firewire, and 802.11 wireless) is expressly prohibited.
Not every HDTV channel has a multiplexed SDTV version of that same channel, and requiring one would use up bandwidth, degrading the primary HDTV channel's picture mode (i.e. down from 1080i to 720p).
NTIA at the US-DOC has a very readable document listing the requirements for a CECB--a Coupon-Eligible Converter Box. It's too bad that the NTIA didn't "lock-down" the design more as CECBs will have differing feature sets (i.e. program guide, S-Video, etc.)
Slightly different system? DVB-T is totally different than ATSC. Without getting into the merits of one system over another, DVB-T is not as advanced as ATSC (granted, DVB-T2 will be more advanced than ATSC--3 years from now), and the technology has been out longer, so the digital-to-analog converters are cheaper due to economies of scale... At best, you've made an apples-to-oranges comparison.
...go to the purchasers, who got duped, into buying said TVs? NO...
Why, oh, why didn't the government ban imports of analog-only TVs after a certain date (say 1-2 years ago)? I mean this would have solved 95% of the problem...
(IANAL) One thing the article keeps touching on, yet nobody here has brought up, is that this law deals with affiliate programs that "reside" in NY. From the article...
The so-called "Amazon tax" closes a loophole for Internet retailers who derive sales through affiliate programs in which Web site owners place a link to the merchant on their site and earn a commission on sales made from referrals.
Looks like the solution is simple--Amazon dumps their affiliates that reside in NY--and every other such state that tries BS like this. (I assume that most/all of the NY online retailers that use Amazon.com as their web presence already charge NY tax, so this wouldn't affect them). Frankly, it's not like Amazon really needs affiliates--I'd say it's a pretty well known company by now... And if I were an affiliate making heavy $$$ from referrals to Amazon.com from my website, I wouldn't think twice about moving from an over-taxed/regulated/burdened state like NY (no flame intended)--in order to keep my livelihood... This doesn't punish Amazon, it punishes their own affiliates that reside in the state!
So, it looks like it will be headed for a showdown in the courts, but it looks like the spirit of the "mail order" court ruling is retained...
It doesn't mean the chance of creating such particles, it means the chance of them being dangerous.
Again, I revert back to my original point. What's the chance--is it per experiment, per second, per micro-second, per year, per power surge, etc.? From the sounds of it, it just takes one problematic particle that doesn't meet our "understanding" of the universe to start a chain-reaction, no matter how slow it is...
What irks me is that scientists have no idea what's going to happen here, yet somehow come up with numbers that say these risks are super small... It's like throwing shit at a fan and saying that there's a 25% chance it will hit a specific side of the room. Not all of that shit is going to land in the same place...
When you play with fire, you're eventually going to get burned.
"...the risk of such a catastrophe was essentially zero"
While I'm not one of the doomsdayers, I do have to ask how these statistics are created, and what bullshit statements like "essentially zero" mean. For example, if "essentially zero" means that 0.00000000000000000001% of the particles cause black holes, then there could be millions of said black holes in the reactor. Does it mean that there's a 0.00000000000000000001% chance that two or more mini black holes would be close enough to cross event horizons? (There's an interesting question--what happens if a black hole comes in contact with or gobbles up another black hole...) Does it mean that there's a 0.00000000000000000001% chance the world could be obliterated--every 5e^(-100) second, second, minute, day, year, lifetime, experiment, power fluctuation, temperature change, terrorist act, system reboot, fart in the wind, etc. that the experiment is run???
Frankly, when I hear such statements, I feel like I'm being told in a condascending way to "don't worry about it, we know what we're doing!" I don't know what "essentially zero" really means... What could happen in that 0.00000000000000000001% of "cases"? I'm guessing these 2 guys do know something of real concern...
Seriously, I don't understand why the US is part of the WTO. Yes, I know that the US helped found it (and its predecessor, GATT) but I don't see why we keep spending resources to have someone else tell us what our tariffs should be, especially if we ignore rulings... All it has done is help shift manufacturing (and technology) jobs overseas, create less oversight of products on store shelves (think China and dead pets), and give cheaper imports to Wal-Mart.
Seriously, swap AAPL and MSFT in most corporate decisions and they make the same stupid decisions--one company is just smaller than the other. Troll me down if you want to... A smart, cheap move by Apple would have been to not build Safari in the first place and throw a few bucks and their weight into the Mozilla project. Neither Apple nor Microsoft has made any money on a browser, and all it has caused is negative feelings, security holes, government intervention, and fragmentation of the browser market. Shareholders should be revolting against both companies for spending millions (IE has to be up to $1 billion since '95) on software they have given away for free--all in the name of bragging rights and for the CEO's ego...
it costs more than the eee pc and has less funtionality. I'm thinking no.
I agree. Such a machine ties me to WinCE, which means stripped-down versions of.NET, SQL Server, IE, MS-Office--and nothing else. USB support will be limited to the 5 devices that WinCE supports out of the box. (Who writes WinCE USB drivers for their devices?)
With the multitude of super-subnotebooks out there that can run a real OS (WinXP, Linux) with real applications that don't require a "host PC" (even my Toshiba Libretto 110CT with 64MB RAM from 1998 has more potential than this pice of junk), and given the eeePC + XP-Home costs the same as this, what is the market for such a machine at this price??? Cut the price in half and it might be worth talking about...
Getting excited about a new version of a web browser: how 90's is that?
You got that right. I couldn't wait for Netscape 3 to replace the unstable debacle known as Netscape 2.0x. (For those who don't remember, Netscape 2 was on the market for all of 5 months).
The RIAA could easily dangle a $1-2 million carrot in front of her, and probably will. While we all know she shouldn't take it, most sane people (and probably her lawyer) would say "take the money and run" to not have to deal with this issue for the next 5 years...
Call me a pessimist, but her case against the RIAA will not change their tactics because they will buy their way out of the mess.
Now, if some DA or AG were to file criminal charges against the RIAA (God knows the FBI won't), then that would change their ways... But, alas, we live in the Corporate States of America.
I left neutral feedback so the seller would take a little hint that while the time was too long, the sale still went thru fine. That bitch (eBay ID: "doubleknock", if anyone cares to avoid her) shot back with a negative.
Lesson learned that eBay sucks. As a result, I've cut back my purchases on eBay by 90% and sales by 100%. eBay Corp's indifference cost them a few pennies...
OK, so now eBay doesn't allow sellers to leave feedback on buyers--a half-assed approach to the problem. I once got burned by a seller, who decided to leave a lie that borders on libel as feedback. (The seller had no contact with me for 2 weeks after a sale, even though I paid her, so I left a "neutral", then the bitch shot back with a "negative" rating saying not to deal with me as a customer)... So, why hasn't eBay removed all those seller ratings? Seriously, what's the point of keeping them if they're shitty?
A better idea would be that a buyer can't leave feedback for a seller until that seller has left feedback on the buyer... Crappy sellers would be forced to clean up their act while buyers can give true feedback without retribution.
It hasn't ever been the case that the rights granted by a country apply to its citizens while they are in other countries; this is referred to as "sovereignty".
No shit, Sherlock. I was referring to the fact that such an example would essentially leave people in exile in their own countries. Not to mention the fact what an outstanding international arrest warrant could do to someone's future job prospects, etc. All of this despite the guarantees in the Constitution...
Frankly, scrawlings & signatures on an XBox like that are a form of artwork. This is no different than taking a painting to a frame store and having them put a new frame on it. If the frame store damages the original artwork, or decides to "improve" it, they should be held liable for the diminished value of the potentially priceless artifact. So, why would an XBox, clearly containing some artistic work, being sent to Mexico for warranty work be any different???
If I was this guy, I'd consider contacting the local DA's office to file criminal charges against Microsoft. At the very least, file a police report to get the process started. Intentionally damaging or stealing artwork (and this is clearly intentional) is often worse than doing the same to "normal" property--i.e. a microwave or TV.
First off, I think Wikipedia should ignore the Italian courts and give a big virtual F-U. I think more companies are going to start doing that over Internet posts, sites, etc. and claim they're only bound by their home laws. (The French charges against eBay for allowing the sale of Nazi memorabilia come to mind). I think this lawsuit thing is the tip of the iceberg--companies and individuals will start getting sued in foreign jurisdictions because a particular comment, post, etc. was "made available" to a computer in that foreign country...
Which makes me start to realize something... Let's say a government pressed criminal charges. Here's a hypothetical example that doesn't seem so far-fetched... I make an anti-Chinese government site/post/blog from my home PC in the US, and that really pisses the Chinese government off. Since there's no free speech in China (but my website manages to get past the Great Firewall of China), I get criminally charged with "disrespecting the government" or some crap like that and they issue an international arrest warrant. I could then be arrested in the US and would have to hire a lawyer as to why I shouldn't be extradited to China--even though I exercised my right to free speech according to the US Constitution, while in the US. Even if I persuade a judge to not grant the extradition request (in all likelihood, at great expense to me), I could never travel outside the US as I could be arrested at any time and extradited from a country with no vested interest in preventing a foreigner from being extradited to China. Frightening, isn't it?
We all know it's supposed to... In all honesty, this is self-perpetuated Vista FUD... If I have a multi-function printer that doesn't have a Vista driver, do I go to Vista and try coaxing the XP driver to work--potentially reducing system stability, or do I stick with XP knowing that driver works?
Frankly, it's sad that Linux often supports an older product better than Vista does...
From the article--an e-mail from Steven Sinofsky to Ballmer...
People who rely on using all the features of their hardware (like Jon's Nikon scanner) will not see availability for some time, if ever, depending on the mfg. The built-in drivers never have all the features but do work. For example, I could print with [my] Brother printer and use it as a stand-alone fax. But network setup, scanning, print to fax must come from Brother.
There it is, in plain English. This is what's killing Vista, and Microsoft already saw it a year ago! Ignoring Vista's perceived issues with DRM (which can be circumvented), speed issues & app compatibility (which can be improved with a service pack), and UAC (which has been improved with SP1), many people don't want to throw out even one item of hardware so they could use Vista. And they're right not to do so...
Microsoft got cheap. Instead of paying reluctant vendors to write Vista drivers for older hardware (supposedly this happened for Win95), they ended up turning Vista into a bitter pill. Case in point, I have an HP Photosmart 7350 printer that I bought in 2002. This printer is great because it was one of the last printers to not have HP's customer-friendly "your printer cartridge is too old so I won't print" mechanism. For a few months after Vista's release, HP kept saying that the printer was incompatible with Vista. Suddenly, the printer is compatible with the "HP Deskjet 5550" driver included with Vista. Huh? Of course, HP says that some features are unavailable, but doesn't say which ones...
Even Vista fanbois have to agree that hardware incompatibility/driver issues are the biggest problem with Vista. Microsoft's Vista Upgrade adviser, while offering great disclosure, doesn't help promote Vista. So that leaves people like me stuck between having perfectly useful hardware with no fully-functioning Vista driver (or no driver at all), and moving to Vista... So I'm sticking with XP.
I have a Toshiba Libretto 110CT. This thing is unbelievably portable--but it is from 1998, so it has only a Pentium-MMX/233 and 64MB RAM, and I'm running it with W2K. Even with these piddly specs, browsing using FF 2.0.0.12 is acceptable--except when it comes to Javascript. GMail "newer version" borders on useless due to GMail's excessive JS usage (a simple mouseover triggers a shitload of events), and FF 2 keeps the CPU pegged at 100% for as long as 30 seconds while using GMail! So, I have high hopes that FF 3's JS performance will make such sites usable even on this little PC...
Why do I bring this up? While a Libretto is an extreme example, the EeePC's specs aren't significantly better than a Libretto's--despite being 10 years newer... The CPU is only ~4x faster, it has 512MB RAM (much better)--but the screen & storage are the same! So, JS performance improvements are definitely needed in FF...
Frankly, someone should open an investigation as to how many hundreds or thousands of $$$$ of cash were paid. I'll bet Comcast doesn't have 1099s for the people they paid, which they probably illegally did with CASH...
Although at has been several years since I've been out of the US, I also think that there are other countries in the world, in this case Japan. Since this has already happened in the possibly ficticious country of Japan and nobody went to jail, this action has probably been deemed legal in Japan.
Aaaah, so just because nobody gave it a second glance in Japan, we're all subject to Japanese law regarding competition, collusion, etc. So, under your logic, the EU has no basis for an antitrust complaint against Microsoft because it's an American company. And I've got some swampland, er, pristine untouched land for sale, just for you!!!
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, this doesn't take into account MPEG compression, but even with compression, 1080i requires a lot more bandwidth (I assume ~33% more).
Not every HDTV channel has a multiplexed SDTV version of that same channel, and requiring one would use up bandwidth, degrading the primary HDTV channel's picture mode (i.e. down from 1080i to 720p).
NTIA at the US-DOC has a very readable document listing the requirements for a CECB--a Coupon-Eligible Converter Box. It's too bad that the NTIA didn't "lock-down" the design more as CECBs will have differing feature sets (i.e. program guide, S-Video, etc.)
Slightly different system? DVB-T is totally different than ATSC. Without getting into the merits of one system over another, DVB-T is not as advanced as ATSC (granted, DVB-T2 will be more advanced than ATSC--3 years from now), and the technology has been out longer, so the digital-to-analog converters are cheaper due to economies of scale... At best, you've made an apples-to-oranges comparison.
...go to the purchasers, who got duped, into buying said TVs? NO...
Why, oh, why didn't the government ban imports of analog-only TVs after a certain date (say 1-2 years ago)? I mean this would have solved 95% of the problem...
So, it looks like it will be headed for a showdown in the courts, but it looks like the spirit of the "mail order" court ruling is retained...
What irks me is that scientists have no idea what's going to happen here, yet somehow come up with numbers that say these risks are super small... It's like throwing shit at a fan and saying that there's a 25% chance it will hit a specific side of the room. Not all of that shit is going to land in the same place...
When you play with fire, you're eventually going to get burned.
Frankly, when I hear such statements, I feel like I'm being told in a condascending way to "don't worry about it, we know what we're doing!" I don't know what "essentially zero" really means... What could happen in that 0.00000000000000000001% of "cases"? I'm guessing these 2 guys do know something of real concern...
Seriously, I don't understand why the US is part of the WTO. Yes, I know that the US helped found it (and its predecessor, GATT) but I don't see why we keep spending resources to have someone else tell us what our tariffs should be, especially if we ignore rulings... All it has done is help shift manufacturing (and technology) jobs overseas, create less oversight of products on store shelves (think China and dead pets), and give cheaper imports to Wal-Mart.
Seriously, swap AAPL and MSFT in most corporate decisions and they make the same stupid decisions--one company is just smaller than the other. Troll me down if you want to... A smart, cheap move by Apple would have been to not build Safari in the first place and throw a few bucks and their weight into the Mozilla project. Neither Apple nor Microsoft has made any money on a browser, and all it has caused is negative feelings, security holes, government intervention, and fragmentation of the browser market. Shareholders should be revolting against both companies for spending millions (IE has to be up to $1 billion since '95) on software they have given away for free--all in the name of bragging rights and for the CEO's ego...
Hah! Looks like corporations and end-users like me should wait for SP2 or maybe even SP3!
"The (w) ow is now!"
With the multitude of super-subnotebooks out there that can run a real OS (WinXP, Linux) with real applications that don't require a "host PC" (even my Toshiba Libretto 110CT with 64MB RAM from 1998 has more potential than this pice of junk), and given the eeePC + XP-Home costs the same as this, what is the market for such a machine at this price??? Cut the price in half and it might be worth talking about...
The RIAA could easily dangle a $1-2 million carrot in front of her, and probably will. While we all know she shouldn't take it, most sane people (and probably her lawyer) would say "take the money and run" to not have to deal with this issue for the next 5 years...
Call me a pessimist, but her case against the RIAA will not change their tactics because they will buy their way out of the mess.
Now, if some DA or AG were to file criminal charges against the RIAA (God knows the FBI won't), then that would change their ways... But, alas, we live in the Corporate States of America.
I left neutral feedback so the seller would take a little hint that while the time was too long, the sale still went thru fine. That bitch (eBay ID: "doubleknock", if anyone cares to avoid her) shot back with a negative.
Lesson learned that eBay sucks. As a result, I've cut back my purchases on eBay by 90% and sales by 100%. eBay Corp's indifference cost them a few pennies...
OK, so now eBay doesn't allow sellers to leave feedback on buyers--a half-assed approach to the problem. I once got burned by a seller, who decided to leave a lie that borders on libel as feedback. (The seller had no contact with me for 2 weeks after a sale, even though I paid her, so I left a "neutral", then the bitch shot back with a "negative" rating saying not to deal with me as a customer)... So, why hasn't eBay removed all those seller ratings? Seriously, what's the point of keeping them if they're shitty?
A better idea would be that a buyer can't leave feedback for a seller until that seller has left feedback on the buyer... Crappy sellers would be forced to clean up their act while buyers can give true feedback without retribution.
Frankly, scrawlings & signatures on an XBox like that are a form of artwork. This is no different than taking a painting to a frame store and having them put a new frame on it. If the frame store damages the original artwork, or decides to "improve" it, they should be held liable for the diminished value of the potentially priceless artifact. So, why would an XBox, clearly containing some artistic work, being sent to Mexico for warranty work be any different???
If I was this guy, I'd consider contacting the local DA's office to file criminal charges against Microsoft. At the very least, file a police report to get the process started. Intentionally damaging or stealing artwork (and this is clearly intentional) is often worse than doing the same to "normal" property--i.e. a microwave or TV.
First off, I think Wikipedia should ignore the Italian courts and give a big virtual F-U. I think more companies are going to start doing that over Internet posts, sites, etc. and claim they're only bound by their home laws. (The French charges against eBay for allowing the sale of Nazi memorabilia come to mind). I think this lawsuit thing is the tip of the iceberg--companies and individuals will start getting sued in foreign jurisdictions because a particular comment, post, etc. was "made available" to a computer in that foreign country...
Which makes me start to realize something... Let's say a government pressed criminal charges. Here's a hypothetical example that doesn't seem so far-fetched... I make an anti-Chinese government site/post/blog from my home PC in the US, and that really pisses the Chinese government off. Since there's no free speech in China (but my website manages to get past the Great Firewall of China), I get criminally charged with "disrespecting the government" or some crap like that and they issue an international arrest warrant. I could then be arrested in the US and would have to hire a lawyer as to why I shouldn't be extradited to China--even though I exercised my right to free speech according to the US Constitution, while in the US . Even if I persuade a judge to not grant the extradition request (in all likelihood, at great expense to me), I could never travel outside the US as I could be arrested at any time and extradited from a country with no vested interest in preventing a foreigner from being extradited to China. Frightening, isn't it?
We all know it's supposed to... In all honesty, this is self-perpetuated Vista FUD... If I have a multi-function printer that doesn't have a Vista driver, do I go to Vista and try coaxing the XP driver to work--potentially reducing system stability, or do I stick with XP knowing that driver works?
Frankly, it's sad that Linux often supports an older product better than Vista does...
Microsoft got cheap. Instead of paying reluctant vendors to write Vista drivers for older hardware (supposedly this happened for Win95), they ended up turning Vista into a bitter pill. Case in point, I have an HP Photosmart 7350 printer that I bought in 2002. This printer is great because it was one of the last printers to not have HP's customer-friendly "your printer cartridge is too old so I won't print" mechanism. For a few months after Vista's release, HP kept saying that the printer was incompatible with Vista. Suddenly, the printer is compatible with the "HP Deskjet 5550" driver included with Vista. Huh? Of course, HP says that some features are unavailable, but doesn't say which ones...
Even Vista fanbois have to agree that hardware incompatibility/driver issues are the biggest problem with Vista. Microsoft's Vista Upgrade adviser, while offering great disclosure, doesn't help promote Vista. So that leaves people like me stuck between having perfectly useful hardware with no fully-functioning Vista driver (or no driver at all), and moving to Vista... So I'm sticking with XP.
I have a Toshiba Libretto 110CT. This thing is unbelievably portable--but it is from 1998, so it has only a Pentium-MMX/233 and 64MB RAM, and I'm running it with W2K. Even with these piddly specs, browsing using FF 2.0.0.12 is acceptable--except when it comes to Javascript. GMail "newer version" borders on useless due to GMail's excessive JS usage (a simple mouseover triggers a shitload of events), and FF 2 keeps the CPU pegged at 100% for as long as 30 seconds while using GMail! So, I have high hopes that FF 3's JS performance will make such sites usable even on this little PC...
Why do I bring this up? While a Libretto is an extreme example, the EeePC's specs aren't significantly better than a Libretto's--despite being 10 years newer... The CPU is only ~4x faster, it has 512MB RAM (much better)--but the screen & storage are the same! So, JS performance improvements are definitely needed in FF...
It's Comcastic!
Frankly, someone should open an investigation as to how many hundreds or thousands of $$$$ of cash were paid. I'll bet Comcast doesn't have 1099s for the people they paid, which they probably illegally did with CASH...