I have a PB G4 (early 2005) and one of the things that makes me cautious about wanting a new MacBook Pro is the lack of FW800.
My understanding is that it was not put on because none of Intel's chipsets (which Apple is currently using) supports FW800. Thus they would have had to add a FW800 card or chip onto the motherboard to add the port which isn't usefull to most people. These are home computers after all. I would expect they would keep the FW800 on whatever repalces the dual G5s.
Hopefully they'll bring it back to things like the MacBook and iMac in a later revision.
And hopefully this doesn't mean Apple has to wait on Intel to implement things, this is a one time only thing.
There should be some USB equipment that works. If you look around you should be able to find some. Anything that is compatible with Video 4 Linux (what is the current version? 2?). Look at the kernel drivers in that category and look for hardware that way.
My second suggestion (and possibly better) would be FireWire (if you have it). It's a video source. You should have no problem since FireWire video is well defined. I would be surprised if this didn't work. So besides the FireWire web cams (like the iSight) which may be expensive, if you have a camcorder with FireWire on it, you can use that (or should be able to, I think, may depend on the camcorder).
Last, there is always the video capture card route. A nice camcorder for 10 years ago will probably give you a much better picture than most low or middle range web cams (larger optics, lens, etc).
Now I haven't tried any of these (I don't use Linux regularly, or web cams).
I just tried on my Mac with 10.4.4. It worked just fine. The price updated (took a few seconds, or I could press the "update price" link and it would work perfectly). I had no problems (although I didn't go as far as to order the computer, obviously).
For reference, I just clicked on things until I was configuring a computer, and I got a XPS 600 up to $9,522 by maxing all the options.
Because it isn't a beta. It is a build out of CVS that the developer has released on his home page. It is not official, it is exactly the same as if YOU pulled from CVS development and built a binary and posted it.
It doesn't sound like there WILL be a beta for this. I don't blame them. They don't need it. People could get by with Rosetta until the new version was out (and based on other comments it looks likes the issues mentioned are almost fixed).
I do tons of surfing a day. The only Java I use is the odd time when I decide to play a game on PopCap or Yahoo! Games. As for flash, I can't REMEMBER the last time I actually USED flash. There is probably a flash ad at the top of this page. But it wasn't anything I asked for. I almost never use flash (except, again, for the odd game I might play once or twice a month).
These are not cons for me. It wouldn't bother me one bit.
And as has been said, you can always run the old one under Rosetta which would probably perform fine.
I think that the article is trying to (and failing to) say is that Blu-Ray players are expected to launch at up to and including $1800 (although I heard someone would release one early for about $600 that would only do up to 1080i). I think that is where the figure comes from.
And even then, it is insane. We all know they charge a ton for the early adopters, and while a stand-alone player needs decoder chips and everything, the PS3 has been shown doing realtime 1080p decoding using the Cell so you can deduct the price of all those chips the PS3 already has (video out, processor, sound decoding, etc) from that $1800 too. The PS3 needs the drive and nothing else in one of those players.
There were problems, but when you had to re-issue discs it was a much bigger deal. The thing that leaps to mind for me is Gran Turismo 2 had a famous bug where if you collected every unlockable in the game, it would report the game at 98.x% complete... it was impossible to get 100%.
But before patching was like this, if a game was defective often that was it. Donky Kong 64 had problems with lockups and such as I remember, I don't think they fixed those. I know Madden has had a issue similar to this one in this article in the past (I think it was Madden), but I don't remember what they did about it.
The code is getting more complex and thus it is harder to test things than it was, but I agree that the "safety" of being able to issue "critical updates" via broadband for these kind of issues is being abused by most places as meaning "you can fix it later, let's ship it and get money". Unfortunately as PC gaming has shown us, this will only continue. As soon as it is possible to ship a buggy game and still get money and just "fix it later" that because the industry's SOP.
Watch, now, and the standard console game declines in quality (not that the average game was ever that high in this in the first place).
That said, I agree. I think they should have waited and put it on the PS3. The colossi would have looked better (they look great now but...), and more importantly the environment would have looked better. A larger draw distance would have helped, but the thing that is really needed are better texture filtering (ansitropic would have fixed it some), more textures (the basic ground texture is repeated WAY too much), and a higher poly count would help. The frame-rate issue was sad. The whole game looks kinda muted in colors and muddy. Things aren't too sharp.
I hope they re-release it for the PS3. It really needs it.
It was an excellent game, but the graphical flaws were enough that they were rather distracting.
That kind of collecting is a matter of taste. I enjoyed Banjo-Kazooie too. But if the games were released today, I don't think I would go collecting all 120 stars. But back then there was nothing else like it anywhere so each star was a totally fresh and new experience.
I've had things like what you mention with Banjo-Kazooie happen too, and it is almost funny some times (depends on how critical it is that you stay alive then). I must say that while I've played all the Zelda games, I don't remember the camera system in any of them (except that they use Z-Targeting). I guess that means they had an excellent camera system (otherwise I would remember them being a pain).
Actually, I do remember one thing. In small rooms, the Zelda camera systems would lock your view from one or two points (almost like from security cameras) to avoid many of the problems that I've mentioned with the camera "running into things". Most areas were easily large enough to not run into any problem, which is probably a testament to good level design more than anything else.
Thanks for the comment. I know my "invisible wall" comment was a little simplistic, but it seems to me that it would work well with a little forethought. You don't need EVERY wall to be that way, just some. For example in Shadow of the Colossus you fight a bull like Colossus in this little room like area with four pillars set in alcoves with flames on top that are integral to the fight. You have to keep going up and climbing on these things as you figure out what to do. So you end up near the wall, but you want to be able to see the colossus. That means that you need have the camera "behind the wall". Would it be that hard to mark just those few walls as "camera can move through these" fixing the problem in that small space?
There is another colossus that is like a sand-worm. There are a few places in the giant chamber where you fight him with large bits of rock that protrude up for you to stand by where the boss can't get you (he is FAST). The camera kept running into those rocks for me. But there was nothing IN them. They were just a "safe zone". But you get up close to one and it is almost impossible to get a good view of the colossus because the camera can't go "in" them. Marking them "camera can go in here" would fix that.
You can fix the "look for hidden things" problem by simply not drawing anything behind the wall (including the secret stuff) when the camera is behind the wall. And some games (SotC for example) don't have that problem at all.
The hand problem (and similar things occur with other bosses) may be harder. In some cases, simply not drawing what is behind the player would work rather well (see through walls, but if you back your back up to one to try to see inside, nothing is drawn there), but in other cases that might not work well at all. it is a tough problem.
Yes, games get it right (MGS, but it uses a fixed position camera most of the time to avoid the problem). But for every one of those, there are 100 that get it wrong and that is what annoys me.
PS: I'm still annoyed that I can't seem to play a SINGLE GAME where the hero's sword or hair or something seems to cut through their body as they walk or in pre-scripted scenes. That has got to be fixable for a standard walk cycle or cut scene. When they are climbing around on a monster, there may be problems. But when walking on flat ground? A true fix to this would be complex involving a good physics simulation, and maybe we'll get that soon.
I loved that game, still do. It is right up there with Super Mario World as one of the best games ever made, bar none.
I think it is a bit sad we still don't have the camera right in most games. You would think we would by now, but we don't. I just finished Shadow of the Colossus (great game), but there are real camera problems.
When you are fighting a Colossus and there is lots of room, the camera works very well most of the time (like when you are climbing on their back). But as soon as you walk around a confined space or fight a colossus in a small room, the camera is a MAJOR pain and caused me to get motion sickness very quick (I'm susceptable to that). And in other situations (like on the final colossus when you are climbing on his hand) the camera doesn't work well even though you are in a big space (the camera has a hard time figuring out which side of his hand to show you) and this makes it hard to see what you are doing.
The biggest problem with all these is that they try to fit the camera into the world. The camera shouldn't model a phyical camera that can't be inside a wall, it is supposed to show a "mind's eye" view that doesn't have those limitations. Imagine if they tried to shoot sitcoms in real rooms instead of rooms missing one wall. It would be a disaster.
Yet in SotC and many other games, the camera must "obey" the world and can not be "in" a wall. Why not let the camera go there and make the wall invisible? If I am pivoting the camera to try to get a sense of where I am, having it suddenly run into the wall my back is up against and stop is very disconcerting. It takes you right out of the expiriance. There you are, about to fight a giant monster, up against a wall, and the only view you can get is that of yourself and that wall because the camera can't show you the oposite view.
It was a great game, but most camera systems still suck. The only games that don't really have problems are fixed camera games (Tycoon games, Warcraft III, first person shooters, driving games, etc). I haven't seen a 3D platformer yet that has a "perfect" camera system. They all have problems.
But they all have the same problems that Mario 64 had 10 years ago. 10 years ago. Loot at how far we've come in other respects (graphics being the obvious example), yet we can't fix the camera system.
Great game though. It is a Shakespere or Dickens or Hemminway of video games. Not in story (very generic), but in getting everything right (pacing, little extras, challenge, presentation, etc).
Re:This should be interesting.
on
A Look at Google DRM
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Where there are hard-liners on/., I think that most of us have no problem with DRM. I think we realize that we won't be getting DRM free media any time soon (at least for major properties like new movies).
The problem isn't the DRM, it is that the DRM is usually VERY restrictive. Look at Sony. Sony made some of the best products on Earth. Nice, sexy, good products. They made the walkman. They made great CD players. So when it came time to get an MP3 player, Sony would be a natural, right?
Nope. They didn't sell them (until recently). So you could either re-rip all your media into their proprietary format that is worthless everywhere else, or you can re-encode it (perhaps on the fly) as you transfer the music to the player (slower transfers, worse sound quality). Because of these DRM restrictions (which I doubt stopped a single "music pirate") they players were considered junk. Whether you like Sony and their products or not, you have to admit that was a STUPID move.
Apple's iTunes Music Store, on the other hand, has been very successful. What are their terms? Listen to it all you want on as many iPods as you want, up to 5 computers, and you can burn it to 3 or 5 CDs (can't remember). Most people won't be running into any of those restrictions any time soon (possibly the CD one, but only if you don't have an iPod).
DRM isn't that bad if it is done right. Apple has proved that. But most of the time it is used to cripple products (Sony's "MP3" players), cause headaches (unstoppable previews on DVDs anyone?), and other problems.
If Google has DRM that doesn't interfere with use, there is nothing wrong with it. I understand a little copy protection. If I made content, I'd want to be able to put it on my content.
What I think is more interesting than the list of titles, is that Blu-ray is showing discs of content encoded in 1080p. Sony seems to be pushing that fact. I think this is rather significant, as this is the biggest difference between the two disc sets that would be visible to the consumer. Blu-ray may hold a bit more and use menus based on Java instead of MS's little language, but the difference between 1080i and p is a noticeable difference. Considering they both have basically the same draconian DRM (and DRM will never get better 'till we get a law), this should be significant.
After all, at any resolution, progressive looks better than interlaced because you have twice the data. Makes pans and other motion smoother, more detail, etc.
Too bad you have to buy a very expensive (right now) TV to watch 1080p. But Sony is pushing it with the PS3. 1080p Video games (if they deliver that) and 1080p video.
I still think Blu-ray will win. While this is a definite plus for them (I assume HD-DVD could do this, but I haven't heard of any of the movies or players being able to), if you combine this with the increased storage capacity, the soon to be massive installed base (the PS3), and the availability (within a few months of HD-DVD, and more importantly: before Christmas)... I think things are getting better and better for Blu-ray to win.
It is too bad the NIH syndrome is so big that the two groups couldn't suck it up and make one format. They didn't learn from Beta, I guess. And now that they have a VERY popular entrenched format (DVD) to compete against where Beta didn't (no previous home-video recording equipment), things don't look good on the whole.
Blu-ray will win. It will be a hollow victory. They will beat HD-DVD, but they will only beat DVDs because the studios will stop producing them/selling them. I don't think ANY high-def format is strong enough to take over DVD without resorting to cheating within the next 5 years, at least.
But that depends on the price of HDTVs. If they stay too expensive, then there is no point. If prices crash, then bring on the high-def movies at home.
I have seen this before, and I have NO IDEA where people get that from. Picasa is a photo collection program. It lets you make small edits (crops, reduce red-eye, color balance, etc) but it is not an image editor. It is designed to help your organize your photos and find them easily.
It is the best program I have seen for that purpose on Windows. It really is great. And free too (back when it cost money, Wolf Camera would give it out on photo-cds you got back with your pictures; then Google bought it an made it free for everyone).
The only program I like more for that purpose is iPhoto, but that isn't available for Windows (obviously).
I don't think this is aimed at gamers, exactly. I would think this would be aimed at professionals. I could be wrong. Who else would need the ability to drive 4 monitors at over 1600x1200 each?
I agree this is overkill, but I think that it is like those 108" TVs that someone (Samsung?) is showing at CES. It may be a product that is for sale, but they don't expect to actually sell any number of them greater than 5. It is more a PR boast than anything else.
Personally, I can't wait for Mac World SF. Rumor has it Apple will introduce a new version of their pro apps (specifically Final Cut Pro) that can work on ultra-HD content (I think it was 11 megapixels a frame, 4000x2700 or so) and a new monitor designed with a high enough resolution to be able to show it full-frame, unstretched. Now THAT should be cool to see.
But it is CES and products fall into two categories: "wow, that's neat" and "wow, that's neat and who would ever buy that".
My understanding is that Sony's Blu-Ray players are supposed to all put out 1080p and the content on the discs is supposed to be 1080p. That is the "highER" definition that they were pushing with their conference the other day at CES.
Why don't they ever tell you stuff like this in science class?
This obviously isn't new, and there is no way it was classified.
These are the kind of things that can help make science interesting. Being able to imagine what it is like on the moon, and interesting stories. That thing about they thought it was a 40 degree slope when it was a light trick and only 10. I would remember that. It would also go to show that science is fallible. No one thought of that before they got there. We still discover new things accidently. This kind of stuff can get kids interested in science.
But instead, we teach them Boyle's Law and Newton's Three Laws. Both are important, but it seems like they taught that to me in middle school. And then later in middle school. Then in high school. Then in high school again. Then in college. And that is just in physics classes (it's in Math textbooks to be used as examples too). Now while I understand repeating it between middle school and college, and teaching it again in college based on Calculus to do more demanding/interesting problems, so much of the science classes I've had are just "memorize these things (again)." Interesting stories like this just don't get talked about.
I agree. That said, when the keyboard was first shown I (and many others) thought that it was an EXCELLENT DESIGN for what it is. While I wouldn't use it for a desktop or laptop (who would), it is perfect for a Home Theater PC. When you still need a keyboard, it is an excellent arrangement because you can use the keyboard and mouse at the same time, there is a mousing surface there (I'd only be worried the mouse would slide off). I think it seems like a very nice design.
But at least they will finally try to sell SOMETHING. While they'll never make even a tiny fraction of their money back selling this keyboard, it is good someone is selling one.
Could you provide any kind of link on how they do that? I don't watch South Park, but I am familiar with it and I figured it was Flash also. Isn't Maya used for 3D usually? Do you know why they used Maya instead of something else?
Really, I'd love to see an article on how many of these kind of cartoons (like the Flash ones CN plays, and any other cartoon that is not made using "tradition" methods) are made.
Why do you think I put "Except maybe a DSLR" in my post that you replied to? I know that on even a lower SLR (like a Digital Rebel, which is lower compared to a 20D) ISO 400 and 800 are very usable (and probably as clean as my 50 and 100). The only reason there was a "maybe" in there is because there are DSLRs that have Optical Image Stabilization so you get the best of both worlds.
But, did you REALLY think I was trying to say my $500 ultra-zoom camera was better than a $2000 DSLR? I would trade it in for a half-decent DSLR in a heartbeat. But for the money I had, it was a GREAT camera. And for the point and shoot crowd (which is what the Kodak camera here is aimed at), Image Stabilization is a FANTASTIC feature (which this Kodak, sadly, lacks).
Either that, or it is like a video camera, where it chops off the edges of the shot and moves the frames so that things look smoother. The catch is you lose image quality because stuff gets cropped off. It doesn't work with still frames.
Optical image stabilization (having some sort of motor or whatever attached a lens element/mirror/sensor to compensate for physical motion) is what matters. It is too bad marketing people get to make all these dumb claims that just confuse people.
I can't wait for this game. I played the original, not expecting much (Disney has made some nice games, but at the same time...) and I was BLOWN AWAY. The game was fantastic.
I wanted to like Kingdom Hearts: Chain of Memories for the GBA but I just couldn't get into the whole "Action Card Battle" thing (the battles were terrible, so I didn't get far).
I can't wait for this one though. This is one of the few games I will just go out and buy (instead of rent). It is good to hear the graphics are shaping up nicely (the original did a great job, so that doesn't surprise me too much). I guess I'm a bit sensitive to this because I've been playing Shadow of the Colossus right now. While the game is amazing in scope and feeling, the graphics have serious problems (in my opinion) and I think they should have kept it over for the PS3 (what a launch title, huh?)> While the game looks good, it is just DYING for some anti-aliasing or anisotropic filtering to kill the shimmering on the ground. The textures all look muddy and the game could really benefit from some high dynamic range. The framerate suffers too (not too much, but enough that you can notice it). The camera absolutely sucks when you are in close spaces (but that is true of most games). It is a great game and I can't wait to finish it, but with it's issues and the issues of Psychonauts (the last game I played, should have done it on the XBox) I'm a little sensitive to it right now.
Slashdot Mirror
My understanding is that it was not put on because none of Intel's chipsets (which Apple is currently using) supports FW800. Thus they would have had to add a FW800 card or chip onto the motherboard to add the port which isn't usefull to most people. These are home computers after all. I would expect they would keep the FW800 on whatever repalces the dual G5s.
Hopefully they'll bring it back to things like the MacBook and iMac in a later revision.
And hopefully this doesn't mean Apple has to wait on Intel to implement things, this is a one time only thing.
There should be some USB equipment that works. If you look around you should be able to find some. Anything that is compatible with Video 4 Linux (what is the current version? 2?). Look at the kernel drivers in that category and look for hardware that way.
My second suggestion (and possibly better) would be FireWire (if you have it). It's a video source. You should have no problem since FireWire video is well defined. I would be surprised if this didn't work. So besides the FireWire web cams (like the iSight) which may be expensive, if you have a camcorder with FireWire on it, you can use that (or should be able to, I think, may depend on the camcorder).
Last, there is always the video capture card route. A nice camcorder for 10 years ago will probably give you a much better picture than most low or middle range web cams (larger optics, lens, etc).
Now I haven't tried any of these (I don't use Linux regularly, or web cams).
For reference, I just clicked on things until I was configuring a computer, and I got a XPS 600 up to $9,522 by maxing all the options.
It doesn't sound like there WILL be a beta for this. I don't blame them. They don't need it. People could get by with Rosetta until the new version was out (and based on other comments it looks likes the issues mentioned are almost fixed).
I do tons of surfing a day. The only Java I use is the odd time when I decide to play a game on PopCap or Yahoo! Games. As for flash, I can't REMEMBER the last time I actually USED flash. There is probably a flash ad at the top of this page. But it wasn't anything I asked for. I almost never use flash (except, again, for the odd game I might play once or twice a month).
These are not cons for me. It wouldn't bother me one bit.
And as has been said, you can always run the old one under Rosetta which would probably perform fine.
$200 for a pair of jeans.
Yeah, I'll save the money, buy normal jeans, and buy an extra iPod instead.
I've heard $300 which I could believe.
I think that the article is trying to (and failing to) say is that Blu-Ray players are expected to launch at up to and including $1800 (although I heard someone would release one early for about $600 that would only do up to 1080i). I think that is where the figure comes from.
And even then, it is insane. We all know they charge a ton for the early adopters, and while a stand-alone player needs decoder chips and everything, the PS3 has been shown doing realtime 1080p decoding using the Cell so you can deduct the price of all those chips the PS3 already has (video out, processor, sound decoding, etc) from that $1800 too. The PS3 needs the drive and nothing else in one of those players.
But before patching was like this, if a game was defective often that was it. Donky Kong 64 had problems with lockups and such as I remember, I don't think they fixed those. I know Madden has had a issue similar to this one in this article in the past (I think it was Madden), but I don't remember what they did about it.
The code is getting more complex and thus it is harder to test things than it was, but I agree that the "safety" of being able to issue "critical updates" via broadband for these kind of issues is being abused by most places as meaning "you can fix it later, let's ship it and get money". Unfortunately as PC gaming has shown us, this will only continue. As soon as it is possible to ship a buggy game and still get money and just "fix it later" that because the industry's SOP.
Watch, now, and the standard console game declines in quality (not that the average game was ever that high in this in the first place).
That said, I agree. I think they should have waited and put it on the PS3. The colossi would have looked better (they look great now but...), and more importantly the environment would have looked better. A larger draw distance would have helped, but the thing that is really needed are better texture filtering (ansitropic would have fixed it some), more textures (the basic ground texture is repeated WAY too much), and a higher poly count would help. The frame-rate issue was sad. The whole game looks kinda muted in colors and muddy. Things aren't too sharp.
I hope they re-release it for the PS3. It really needs it.
It was an excellent game, but the graphical flaws were enough that they were rather distracting.
I've had things like what you mention with Banjo-Kazooie happen too, and it is almost funny some times (depends on how critical it is that you stay alive then). I must say that while I've played all the Zelda games, I don't remember the camera system in any of them (except that they use Z-Targeting). I guess that means they had an excellent camera system (otherwise I would remember them being a pain).
Actually, I do remember one thing. In small rooms, the Zelda camera systems would lock your view from one or two points (almost like from security cameras) to avoid many of the problems that I've mentioned with the camera "running into things". Most areas were easily large enough to not run into any problem, which is probably a testament to good level design more than anything else.
There is another colossus that is like a sand-worm. There are a few places in the giant chamber where you fight him with large bits of rock that protrude up for you to stand by where the boss can't get you (he is FAST). The camera kept running into those rocks for me. But there was nothing IN them. They were just a "safe zone". But you get up close to one and it is almost impossible to get a good view of the colossus because the camera can't go "in" them. Marking them "camera can go in here" would fix that.
You can fix the "look for hidden things" problem by simply not drawing anything behind the wall (including the secret stuff) when the camera is behind the wall. And some games (SotC for example) don't have that problem at all.
The hand problem (and similar things occur with other bosses) may be harder. In some cases, simply not drawing what is behind the player would work rather well (see through walls, but if you back your back up to one to try to see inside, nothing is drawn there), but in other cases that might not work well at all. it is a tough problem.
Yes, games get it right (MGS, but it uses a fixed position camera most of the time to avoid the problem). But for every one of those, there are 100 that get it wrong and that is what annoys me.
PS: I'm still annoyed that I can't seem to play a SINGLE GAME where the hero's sword or hair or something seems to cut through their body as they walk or in pre-scripted scenes. That has got to be fixable for a standard walk cycle or cut scene. When they are climbing around on a monster, there may be problems. But when walking on flat ground? A true fix to this would be complex involving a good physics simulation, and maybe we'll get that soon.
I think it is a bit sad we still don't have the camera right in most games. You would think we would by now, but we don't. I just finished Shadow of the Colossus (great game), but there are real camera problems.
When you are fighting a Colossus and there is lots of room, the camera works very well most of the time (like when you are climbing on their back). But as soon as you walk around a confined space or fight a colossus in a small room, the camera is a MAJOR pain and caused me to get motion sickness very quick (I'm susceptable to that). And in other situations (like on the final colossus when you are climbing on his hand) the camera doesn't work well even though you are in a big space (the camera has a hard time figuring out which side of his hand to show you) and this makes it hard to see what you are doing.
The biggest problem with all these is that they try to fit the camera into the world. The camera shouldn't model a phyical camera that can't be inside a wall, it is supposed to show a "mind's eye" view that doesn't have those limitations. Imagine if they tried to shoot sitcoms in real rooms instead of rooms missing one wall. It would be a disaster.
Yet in SotC and many other games, the camera must "obey" the world and can not be "in" a wall. Why not let the camera go there and make the wall invisible? If I am pivoting the camera to try to get a sense of where I am, having it suddenly run into the wall my back is up against and stop is very disconcerting. It takes you right out of the expiriance. There you are, about to fight a giant monster, up against a wall, and the only view you can get is that of yourself and that wall because the camera can't show you the oposite view.
It was a great game, but most camera systems still suck. The only games that don't really have problems are fixed camera games (Tycoon games, Warcraft III, first person shooters, driving games, etc). I haven't seen a 3D platformer yet that has a "perfect" camera system. They all have problems.
But they all have the same problems that Mario 64 had 10 years ago. 10 years ago. Loot at how far we've come in other respects (graphics being the obvious example), yet we can't fix the camera system.
Great game though. It is a Shakespere or Dickens or Hemminway of video games. Not in story (very generic), but in getting everything right (pacing, little extras, challenge, presentation, etc).
The problem isn't the DRM, it is that the DRM is usually VERY restrictive. Look at Sony. Sony made some of the best products on Earth. Nice, sexy, good products. They made the walkman. They made great CD players. So when it came time to get an MP3 player, Sony would be a natural, right?
Nope. They didn't sell them (until recently). So you could either re-rip all your media into their proprietary format that is worthless everywhere else, or you can re-encode it (perhaps on the fly) as you transfer the music to the player (slower transfers, worse sound quality). Because of these DRM restrictions (which I doubt stopped a single "music pirate") they players were considered junk. Whether you like Sony and their products or not, you have to admit that was a STUPID move.
Apple's iTunes Music Store, on the other hand, has been very successful. What are their terms? Listen to it all you want on as many iPods as you want, up to 5 computers, and you can burn it to 3 or 5 CDs (can't remember). Most people won't be running into any of those restrictions any time soon (possibly the CD one, but only if you don't have an iPod).
DRM isn't that bad if it is done right. Apple has proved that. But most of the time it is used to cripple products (Sony's "MP3" players), cause headaches (unstoppable previews on DVDs anyone?), and other problems.
If Google has DRM that doesn't interfere with use, there is nothing wrong with it. I understand a little copy protection. If I made content, I'd want to be able to put it on my content.
We'll see what happens.
Good catch. For some reason I was thinking they were both 60 fps when 1080i is 60 and 1080p is 30.
After all, at any resolution, progressive looks better than interlaced because you have twice the data. Makes pans and other motion smoother, more detail, etc.
Too bad you have to buy a very expensive (right now) TV to watch 1080p. But Sony is pushing it with the PS3. 1080p Video games (if they deliver that) and 1080p video.
I still think Blu-ray will win. While this is a definite plus for them (I assume HD-DVD could do this, but I haven't heard of any of the movies or players being able to), if you combine this with the increased storage capacity, the soon to be massive installed base (the PS3), and the availability (within a few months of HD-DVD, and more importantly: before Christmas)... I think things are getting better and better for Blu-ray to win.
It is too bad the NIH syndrome is so big that the two groups couldn't suck it up and make one format. They didn't learn from Beta, I guess. And now that they have a VERY popular entrenched format (DVD) to compete against where Beta didn't (no previous home-video recording equipment), things don't look good on the whole.
Blu-ray will win. It will be a hollow victory. They will beat HD-DVD, but they will only beat DVDs because the studios will stop producing them/selling them. I don't think ANY high-def format is strong enough to take over DVD without resorting to cheating within the next 5 years, at least.
But that depends on the price of HDTVs. If they stay too expensive, then there is no point. If prices crash, then bring on the high-def movies at home.
And kiss theaters further goodbye.
I have seen this before, and I have NO IDEA where people get that from. Picasa is a photo collection program. It lets you make small edits (crops, reduce red-eye, color balance, etc) but it is not an image editor. It is designed to help your organize your photos and find them easily.
It is the best program I have seen for that purpose on Windows. It really is great. And free too (back when it cost money, Wolf Camera would give it out on photo-cds you got back with your pictures; then Google bought it an made it free for everyone).
The only program I like more for that purpose is iPhoto, but that isn't available for Windows (obviously).
I agree this is overkill, but I think that it is like those 108" TVs that someone (Samsung?) is showing at CES. It may be a product that is for sale, but they don't expect to actually sell any number of them greater than 5. It is more a PR boast than anything else.
Personally, I can't wait for Mac World SF. Rumor has it Apple will introduce a new version of their pro apps (specifically Final Cut Pro) that can work on ultra-HD content (I think it was 11 megapixels a frame, 4000x2700 or so) and a new monitor designed with a high enough resolution to be able to show it full-frame, unstretched. Now THAT should be cool to see.
But it is CES and products fall into two categories: "wow, that's neat" and "wow, that's neat and who would ever buy that".
If you want 1080p, you want Blu-Ray to win.
This obviously isn't new, and there is no way it was classified.
These are the kind of things that can help make science interesting. Being able to imagine what it is like on the moon, and interesting stories. That thing about they thought it was a 40 degree slope when it was a light trick and only 10. I would remember that. It would also go to show that science is fallible. No one thought of that before they got there. We still discover new things accidently. This kind of stuff can get kids interested in science.
But instead, we teach them Boyle's Law and Newton's Three Laws. Both are important, but it seems like they taught that to me in middle school. And then later in middle school. Then in high school. Then in high school again. Then in college. And that is just in physics classes (it's in Math textbooks to be used as examples too). Now while I understand repeating it between middle school and college, and teaching it again in college based on Calculus to do more demanding/interesting problems, so much of the science classes I've had are just "memorize these things (again)." Interesting stories like this just don't get talked about.
But at least they will finally try to sell SOMETHING. While they'll never make even a tiny fraction of their money back selling this keyboard, it is good someone is selling one.
Really, I'd love to see an article on how many of these kind of cartoons (like the Flash ones CN plays, and any other cartoon that is not made using "tradition" methods) are made.
But, did you REALLY think I was trying to say my $500 ultra-zoom camera was better than a $2000 DSLR? I would trade it in for a half-decent DSLR in a heartbeat. But for the money I had, it was a GREAT camera. And for the point and shoot crowd (which is what the Kodak camera here is aimed at), Image Stabilization is a FANTASTIC feature (which this Kodak, sadly, lacks).
Optical image stabilization (having some sort of motor or whatever attached a lens element/mirror/sensor to compensate for physical motion) is what matters. It is too bad marketing people get to make all these dumb claims that just confuse people.
Right. The original quote was about 2x as long as Slashdot will allow me to put in, so I sorta had to butcher it to get it to fit.
I wanted to like Kingdom Hearts: Chain of Memories for the GBA but I just couldn't get into the whole "Action Card Battle" thing (the battles were terrible, so I didn't get far).
I can't wait for this one though. This is one of the few games I will just go out and buy (instead of rent). It is good to hear the graphics are shaping up nicely (the original did a great job, so that doesn't surprise me too much). I guess I'm a bit sensitive to this because I've been playing Shadow of the Colossus right now. While the game is amazing in scope and feeling, the graphics have serious problems (in my opinion) and I think they should have kept it over for the PS3 (what a launch title, huh?)> While the game looks good, it is just DYING for some anti-aliasing or anisotropic filtering to kill the shimmering on the ground. The textures all look muddy and the game could really benefit from some high dynamic range. The framerate suffers too (not too much, but enough that you can notice it). The camera absolutely sucks when you are in close spaces (but that is true of most games). It is a great game and I can't wait to finish it, but with it's issues and the issues of Psychonauts (the last game I played, should have done it on the XBox) I'm a little sensitive to it right now.
But I can't wait to play this game.