Finally, note that your distance to the display has a lot to do with how much you're going to see.
When I started reading this post, that was the first thought that crossed my mind; and, I hope everyone reads down until they reach that statement.
If your entire field of vision is 6000 x 4500, assuming 4:3 ratio for human vision, then, as you say, when a 1080p screen is less than 1/3 of your field a vision any additional resolution is lost. If I hold a 4"x6" index card 2" in front of my eye, it just fills my field of vision. Extrapolating those measurements, a 50" wide TV would have to be within 16 1/3" of my eye to fill my field of vision. If you sit six feet from your TV, a 50" wide screen will take up a mere 25% of your horizontal field of vision. At 1500 x 1125 you've lost some horizontal pixels in resolving a 1080p picture. At eight feet, you're down to 17% or 1020 x 765. At ten feet, you're down to 14% or 840 x 630. At 13 feet, you're down to 640 x 480 and couldn't see any more detail in an HD screen than a regular TV.
Please pay by check to: General Patent Enterprises, Inc. Attn: Patent Licensing Dept. 6123 West Covina Blvd, #3432, Newport Beach CA, 90232-1233. If payment is not received prior to June 1st, 2007, you can expect to hear from our legal team.
How would they address the envelope without violating your patent?
Kinda off topic, but I've always thought it would be a bit morbid (i.e., amusing) to have a flight simulator as one of the games available on those console if for no other reason than to upset the other passengers who don't realize it's a game.
once consideration has been accepted, the contract is in place and cannot be unilaterally changed. they would have ot go to court to prove they had the right to change the terms, and that doesnt normally happen!
You cannot have a contract where one side gets nothing.
If you got a notice right now saying you were undercharged 10,000 dollars for your car, would you pay?
Well, if I only paid $0.00 for it in the first place, I might expect to be asked to return the car or pay a fair price later.
I think the problem with Amazon's deal isn't really any different than walking into a store, taking something to the cashier, having the cashier just put it in a bag and leaving without paying. Even if the cashier says "just go ahead and take it", that doesn't make it right.
Taking advantage of a broken automated system isn't any more moral than stealing if you know the price isn't appropriate.
If an ATM gave you money and didn't deduct it from your account, would you tell the bank?
Wait, do we hate Bush because he's spending too much money on the war, or because he didn't finance it enough to let the troops do their job? I'm so confused!
Why can't it be both? We shouldn't be there in the first place; but, if we're gonna be there, we should be doing it right. Doing the wrong thing poorly is double-plus un-good.
The pyramid scheme statement, in my opinion, would only be accurate if the game producers were using it as an enticement to get people to join the game, but they're not.
The press does seem to have some kind of fascination about people making money off it, as they should, but for the wrong reason.
What I think the industry should be more focused on is not the dashed dreams of people hoping to make money in these virtual universes and failing but those who succeed in making money.
If you can turn around and sell virtual items for real cash, there is an argument to be made that receipt of those virtual items could be a taxable event. Be very afraid about how close we are getting to having to spell out the magic items we've received in WoW and their disposition as part of our income taxes.
Not because they "heard how much money they can make off it."
I think that you are right about the majority of people using Second Life, but I personally know people who do Second Life for a living.
There are people who hear stories about making money from Second Life and pick it up for that reason, but I think the point that the article fails to get is that it is not the creators of the game saying it.
(Or, if you're in the northeast US, typically just lamps, although I couldn't tell you why that is...)
Having grown up in the northeast, I'll take a shot at this one. Many homes and apartment buildings here are relatively old. As such, many are built using plaster and lathe instead of sheetrock to cover walls. With this type of construction, adding outlets along the baseboard is a relatively simple operation while adding light fixtures in the middle of a ceiling borders on the impossible without replacing the plaster (or molded tin!). I think that even as newer construction came along, the infrastructure (e.g., Lamp Stores) was geared toward lamps over fixtures and availability dictated style.
DHS has received a whopping 59 comments about the system before the December 4th deadline and so they extended the deadline for comments to Dec 29th. Details are in this WIRED article
It sure does feel like deliberate timing, doesn't it. But that's not really the point. I think the Republicans would like nothing better than having their opponents squealing about the timing of the verdict, because that means everyone is talking about the verdict. No one, and I mean NO ONE, who's planning to vote Republican gives a crap about the timing.
If you want to convince people to vote for change in control of the house, talk about issues:
The enormity of the federal debt and the fact that hundreds of billions of it is owed to the Chinese.
A congressional end to any auditing oversight of the Iraq reconstruction effort, which has put people in jail, just in time for Rumsfeld to ask congress for even more off budget spending.
If you want to talk about timing, talk about the 25% drop in oil prices leading up to the election that is set to reverse afterward
Or, you can talk about six years of presidential signing statements that have gone uncontested by congress -- some of which assert that the president doesn't have to obey or enforce some or all of the law he's signing.
Iraq has been a serious boondoggle for this election cycle. It may be getting the democrats some needed votes, but people prefer to vote for people who are for something over people who are against something. That's why some races have so many undecided voters. -- real news without sensationalized crime and celebrity gossip
If you want a heated discussion, get into the prevailing argument that if you invent something related to your employers line of business completely on your own time it still belongs to your employer. Combine that with many employers that have intellectual property clauses as part of the employement contract under which they expect you to assign to them all rights to inventions made on your personal time even if it is not related to your business. And, the topper for that is that sometimes you won't be asked to sign over IP rights until during your orientation (this happened to me personally -- I refused and kept the job anyway.)
Play devil's advocate and side with the employers. Their arguments typically revolve around you not having sufficient knowledge of the problem space if not for your employment, therefore the work belongs to them. It's your basic fruit-from-the-poison-tree argument: Even if your work is entirely on your time, you used our intellectual property as the basis for the work. Also, an employee is hard pressed to make the argument that they didn't spend part of their time at work thinking about the work they were doing at home.
Currently simple text banner ads. But a quick look at other sites will show you a growing interest in video ads. YouTube has a lot of visitors, and if Google plays this correctly they can make more advertisement dollars.
If you're suggesting that they could insert ads infront of the video stream, I think that that is a dangerous Pandora's Box that Google almost definitely doesn't want to open for a few of reasons:
It is one thing to avoid matching ads to competitor's content (e.g., not putting Ford ads on GM's website) when you're talking about text. It's a whole lot harded with video
Much of the content of YouTube violates copyright. Inserting ads infront of copy-infringing material could make them even more culpable than they would be just owning the site.
Ads will create a market from an ad-free service to be a disruptive technology and come up from under and destroy YouTube
How on earth is it legit to tack a completely unrelated bill to another and pass them both under the same vote? Am I the only one who sees how unbelievably insane that is?
I agree with you. This is completely insane and it allows bills to basically appear out of nowhere and totally bypass any sort of review. Once a bill comes out of comittee, no one reads them. The guys just vote how their told to vote - often without knowledge of things that have been tacked on at the last minute.
According to this article , the Republicans in congress attached a measure to install radiation detectors in U.S. Ports and pushed it through early this morning. It is now awaiting Bush's signature.
Slashdot Mirror
Finally, note that your distance to the display has a lot to do with how much you're going to see.
When I started reading this post, that was the first thought that crossed my mind; and, I hope everyone reads down until they reach that statement.
If your entire field of vision is 6000 x 4500, assuming 4:3 ratio for human vision, then, as you say, when a 1080p screen is less than 1/3 of your field a vision any additional resolution is lost. If I hold a 4"x6" index card 2" in front of my eye, it just fills my field of vision. Extrapolating those measurements, a 50" wide TV would have to be within 16 1/3" of my eye to fill my field of vision. If you sit six feet from your TV, a 50" wide screen will take up a mere 25% of your horizontal field of vision. At 1500 x 1125 you've lost some horizontal pixels in resolving a 1080p picture. At eight feet, you're down to 17% or 1020 x 765. At ten feet, you're down to 14% or 840 x 630. At 13 feet, you're down to 640 x 480 and couldn't see any more detail in an HD screen than a regular TV.
ruthless efficiency?
Please pay by check to: General Patent Enterprises, Inc. Attn: Patent Licensing Dept. 6123 West Covina Blvd, #3432, Newport Beach CA, 90232-1233. If payment is not received prior to June 1st, 2007, you can expect to hear from our legal team.
How would they address the envelope without violating your patent?
What's better...
:)
Don't you mean "Who's better?"
Although, I guess that's a bit of a presumptive question
So burning polar ice is the plan to prevent greenhouse gases from melting polar ice? What kind of Bizarro world is this?
Kinda off topic, but I've always thought it would be a bit morbid (i.e., amusing) to have a flight simulator as one of the games available on those console if for no other reason than to upset the other passengers who don't realize it's a game.
But wouldn't the cold from the cold war freeze the water?
And, if you overclock it, how do you keep it cool?
once consideration has been accepted, the contract is in place and cannot be unilaterally changed. they would have ot go to court to prove they had the right to change the terms, and that doesnt normally happen!
You cannot have a contract where one side gets nothing.
In America, if someone sends you something through the mail and charges you later, you don't have to pay.
IF the item was unsolicted. The people who got two box sets for free solicited their products.
If you got a notice right now saying you were undercharged 10,000 dollars for your car, would you pay?
Well, if I only paid $0.00 for it in the first place, I might expect to be asked to return the car or pay a fair price later.
I think the problem with Amazon's deal isn't really any different than walking into a store, taking something to the cashier, having the cashier just put it in a bag and leaving without paying. Even if the cashier says "just go ahead and take it", that doesn't make it right.
Taking advantage of a broken automated system isn't any more moral than stealing if you know the price isn't appropriate.
If an ATM gave you money and didn't deduct it from your account, would you tell the bank?
Wait, do we hate Bush because he's spending too much money on the war, or because he didn't finance it enough to let the troops do their job? I'm so confused!
Why can't it be both? We shouldn't be there in the first place; but, if we're gonna be there, we should be doing it right. Doing the wrong thing poorly is double-plus un-good.
The pyramid scheme statement, in my opinion, would only be accurate if the game producers were using it as an enticement to get people to join the game, but they're not.
The press does seem to have some kind of fascination about people making money off it, as they should, but for the wrong reason.
What I think the industry should be more focused on is not the dashed dreams of people hoping to make money in these virtual universes and failing but those who succeed in making money.
If you can turn around and sell virtual items for real cash, there is an argument to be made that receipt of those virtual items could be a taxable event. Be very afraid about how close we are getting to having to spell out the magic items we've received in WoW and their disposition as part of our income taxes.
Sound nuts? Hardly!
Not because they "heard how much money they can make off it."
I think that you are right about the majority of people using Second Life, but I personally know people who do Second Life for a living.
There are people who hear stories about making money from Second Life and pick it up for that reason, but I think the point that the article fails to get is that it is not the creators of the game saying it.
The submitter's email address is shown as: ianal@riaa.com
If that's accurate, should we really be taking copyright advice from the RIAA?
(Or, if you're in the northeast US, typically just lamps, although I couldn't tell you why that is...)
Having grown up in the northeast, I'll take a shot at this one. Many homes and apartment buildings here are relatively old. As such, many are built using plaster and lathe instead of sheetrock to cover walls. With this type of construction, adding outlets along the baseboard is a relatively simple operation while adding light fixtures in the middle of a ceiling borders on the impossible without replacing the plaster (or molded tin!). I think that even as newer construction came along, the infrastructure (e.g., Lamp Stores) was geared toward lamps over fixtures and availability dictated style.
DHS has received a whopping 59 comments about the system before the December 4th deadline and so they extended the deadline for comments to Dec 29th. Details are in this WIRED article
Seriously, the tagging is rapidly dissolving into childish rubbish (even by Slashdot's standards)
Well, I, for one, welcome our trap-detecting overloards!
I offer them these gifts: a beowulf cluster; Natalie Portman; and, of course, Hot Grits (tm).
Oh, and remember: In Soviet Russia, Cowboy Neal options you!
--
under-reported news with commentary
Seriously, the tagging is rapidly dissolving into childish rubbish (even by Slashdot's standards)
Well, I, for one, welcome our trap-detecting overloards!
I offer them these gifts: a beowulf cluster; Natalie Portman; and, of course, Hot Grits (tm).
Oh, and remember: In Soviet Russia, Cowboy Neal options you!
--
under-reported news with commentary
It sure does feel like deliberate timing, doesn't it. But that's not really the point. I think the Republicans would like nothing better than having their opponents squealing about the timing of the verdict, because that means everyone is talking about the verdict. No one, and I mean NO ONE, who's planning to vote Republican gives a crap about the timing.
If you want to convince people to vote for change in control of the house, talk about issues:
Iraq has been a serious boondoggle for this election cycle. It may be getting the democrats some needed votes, but people prefer to vote for people who are for something over people who are against something. That's why some races have so many undecided voters.
--
real news without sensationalized crime and celebrity gossip
--
Real News without sensationalized crime and celebrity gossip
If you want a heated discussion, get into the prevailing argument that if you invent something related to your employers line of business completely on your own time it still belongs to your employer. Combine that with many employers that have intellectual property clauses as part of the employement contract under which they expect you to assign to them all rights to inventions made on your personal time even if it is not related to your business. And, the topper for that is that sometimes you won't be asked to sign over IP rights until during your orientation (this happened to me personally -- I refused and kept the job anyway.)
Play devil's advocate and side with the employers. Their arguments typically revolve around you not having sufficient knowledge of the problem space if not for your employment, therefore the work belongs to them. It's your basic fruit-from-the-poison-tree argument: Even if your work is entirely on your time, you used our intellectual property as the basis for the work. Also, an employee is hard pressed to make the argument that they didn't spend part of their time at work thinking about the work they were doing at home.
If you're suggesting that they could insert ads infront of the video stream, I think that that is a dangerous Pandora's Box that Google almost definitely doesn't want to open for a few of reasons:
--
under-reported news with commentary
How on earth is it legit to tack a completely unrelated bill to another and pass them both under the same vote? Am I the only one who sees how unbelievably insane that is?
They tried to tack on more than that.
I agree with you. This is completely insane and it allows bills to basically appear out of nowhere and totally bypass any sort of review. Once a bill comes out of comittee, no one reads them. The guys just vote how their told to vote - often without knowledge of things that have been tacked on at the last minute.
Oops. My bad. Wrote that backwards. They attached the gambling measure to a bill install radiation detectors in U.S. Ports.
--
Under-Reported News and Comments
According to this article , the Republicans in congress attached a measure to install radiation detectors in U.S. Ports and pushed it through early this morning. It is now awaiting Bush's signature.
Hopefully, this will backfire in November.
--
Last Minute Games On Capital Hill