Perhaps you had some interoperability issues since Bluray is 24p if it's in 1080p. If you turn off 24p output it just puts out a 29.97fps signal created from the 24p. It's supposed to look very similar, although there is some motion blur added through the interlacing process.
If your TV doesn't support 24p it won't work correctly.
It's naturally smooth, so you instead of your brain imagining the missing frames, you just see them. It can really reduce the ambiance of a movie in a negative way.
I didn't believe it until I used avisynth and upped it to 60fps. I always thought 24fps was horribly slow and was a bad thing, but it's really not.
When it's butter smooth it just looks like a nature documentary, not some artistic movie.
No it's true wherever there isn't Capitalism. Mass production and competition drove prices for food, energy, and almost every product down. I didn't see Walmart increasing prices to succeed.
In uncompetitive markets, like this one, is where you see abuse. This is where regulation makes sense. Look what happened to long distance prices after AT&T was broken up.
If it's not locked down, and it's becomes really easy to pirate games, nobody will release them for ps3, they'll just put them out for xbox360. So if you are a Sony fanboy of course you are pissed, these hackers are unwanted by the video game community.
Now Sony should have never let linux run on ps3, that really opened the can of worms, and attracted hackers the world over to play with their system. What did they think was going to happen?
MS Xbox has the right idea, although it's less open than the ps3 in some respects. Proprietary charging ports for the controllers and not using bluetooth for the wireless controllers. But there's the xbox indie arcade that let's anyone write programs for $100/yr, what does Sony have?
I still think Sony handled the situation atrociously, and what positive effect did this have at all?
I've had enough and I hope Hollywood goes belly up. New studios, new actors, new directors, and cheaper movies sound fine to me.
Perhaps that sounded to apocalyptic.
So let me just add, I'm sure a lot of the good actors, writers and directors would be hired by new companies. But to get management to leave, they need to go bankrupt, so that management gets the blame. But who knows, Obama would probably just bail them out with our money anyway.
You are not a target Audience, the target audience has a big plasma TV with a dedicated Bluray player. If you are stacking up bluray movies in their boxes and everything, it seems logical to put it next to your big TV and bluray player. The DRM is stopping most people from just burning a copies for their friends. What they need to do is to provide is a legal way to download and play them in linux.
What's really ridiculous is that I can rent a DVD for $1 from redbox, which is a physical DVD that is stocked in a physical store, in an expensive machine.
Yet... when I go online it's $5 to rent?!
And then you can't even download it to linux anyway, you have to stream through a browser, and it's not even 1080p.
It's amazing pirate sites can offer such ease, yet their legal counterpart offers NO alternative. Compare buying moonshine to going into any liquor store. There isn't rampant illegal alcohol sales because it's so easy to get it legally, and the quality of the legal product is much better.
These big companies could have easily offered alternatives to napster before napster even came out, yet they refused and are still refusing. It's like the drug war, unless you create a totalitarian police state with draconian penalties (Saudi Arabia style), you can't stop it, and even then it's never eradicated, and that's just one small country. The RIAA and MPAA want to police the entire world wide web at that level, HA!
I've had enough and I hope Hollywood goes belly up. New studios, new actors, new directors, and cheaper movies sound fine to me.
As for cost, mathematical software is expensive, and the open source alternatives are NOT user friendly, and have atrocious documentation when compared to Matlab or Mathematica.
I don't see normal teachers getting a grasp of sage or freemat.
Typing in standard math operations is much faster on my calculator. The 89 does derivatives and integrals and solves algebra equations and it's extremely easy to do.
Our University didn't even include the symbolic math package in Matlab until 2009! And even then it doesn't do well with analytic equations, Mathematica is better for that, but that costs a lot too and is weak in other areas.
Perhaps in some new age charter school this could be possible, but introducing this stuff to run of the mill $50,000/yr teachers is not as easy as it might seem. I have never used a math program that was as easy to use as a TI calculator, and I have never enjoyed typing in math using a keyboard.
So why spend money on a netbook that is going to have horrible resale value and will be obsolete within years, whereas a calculator has great resale value, and the 89 is already 13 yrs old and still going strong.
To you a calculator might seem like crippled tech, but I'm a grad student in Physics and I still use my 89 just as much as any of the math programs I mentioned. Until I hit grad school, I used the 89 far more than any math programs.
I just rewrote the program after it was cleared. Writing the quadratic formula program takes less than 5 min. Then you do the test in another 5 min. Then just erase the calculator again.
Obviously for people like us it's completely senseless to keep pounding through quadratic formula over and over again, and I am very glad I had the chance to use a computer to do my work for me.
Back then I had a 83, which is usually all that was allowed in high school. Now I have an 89 and it's great, I'm sure the new ones are marginally better. If you think they are too expensive buy a cheap Casio graphing calculator, it has similar specs and abilities.
I paid a little under $200 for my 89 about 10yrs ago, before the platinum one came out. It still works great, and I have dropped it numerous times, left it in my car for a yr.... and I live in Maine. That means over 100 in the hot sunny summers and down to -20 in winter. It never had any issues, try that with your netbook. No upgrades, no viruses, it just works, instantly.
The batteries last months, not hours. Highly portable, easy to use, it doesn't compare to a netbook. More students will be engineers than math and physics students, so it seems very reasonable to me that are taught to use something they will be able to use for decades to come.
You don't reinvest all your money right away, then you can't hire new employees, and you'd have to liquidate if you had a bad year. And there are no savings for future investments.
Already 50% of people don't pay income taxes, and the highest tax bracket including state taxes is already over 40%.
Take away 10 million from Leno, and now there is 10 million less in the bank to be loaned out to businesses.
Your socialist view that the government would invest that money better than the banks, or Leno's broker, or the mutual funds he owns is only reasonable because you picked a TV celebrity. Most other people work really hard for their money and would invest it well.
How is unemployment good? Nobody having jobs doesn't create a wealthy economy. Now sure, if there was a glut of high skilled workers in a flourishing economy, that would be beneficial to businesses looking to hire those people, but that's not the case.
A cap at 50% is just where it would be without the Bush tax cuts.
Small business is the largest employer in the US, it's sad a couple big companies give all these hard working entrepreneurs a bad name. I agree that protecting large business doesn't really make sense, but almost every law they make to protect us from big businesses just increases the power of bug business and kills off the competition.
I agree, but the previous argument was that since current demand is met, increasing production is pointless.
Obviously as production and supply increases, prices go down, increasing demand. Like what happened with PCs, laptops, smartphones, tablets, and so on.
So the point is to focus on increasing supply, which allows for increased demand. Giving people more money without increasing supply just increases prices, shifts the supply-demand curve, but your purchasing power is stagnant.
Increasing interest rates would encourage savings, which can be lent out to businesses. And, businesses are now more likely to invest, since their customers now have savings.
You have a good point, you're correct, they should pay for those things, but that's only 30% of the budget. Medicaid, Social Security and interest are 50%. I don't think corporations should be paying half their taxes into forced charity programs.
Why on earth would anyone try to increase production for goods that are already cheap and have high market penetration. They need to increase production on more expensive products so that the price can come down. In the US and Europe everyone still wants nicer things but just can't afford them. The majority of people are definitely not satisfied, they would buy more expensive products if they were affordable. Increased production make those expensive products affordable.
Investment in R&D makes future products arrive earlier.
I'd imagine little because there wouldn't likely be a significant marked increase in demand. Consumer demand seems rather saturated in most industries (you can only lust for so much food, so many plasma tvs, etc). Consequentially, I'd imagine most such companies wouldn't expand very much. Instead, most likely CEOs and executives would see bigger bonuses and share holders would demand and get bigger dividends.
Demand is unlimited, it's supply that limits how much demand is met. Almost every company listed on the stock market is trying to expand, I have no idea what you are talking about. There are a couple Billion people who'd like cars and washing machines and plasma TVs.
Without businesses there are no jobs. Business owners take risks and create jobs out of thin air. They create value where none existed. They already pay taxes on personal income. If there is a more profitable (they are combining land, labor,and capital more efficiently) company, they will succeed. If they pay higher salaries they will get better employees, and pay out more taxes. Why are we taxing the people that create jobs and provide wealth?
Businesses are the miracles of capitalism and should be praised. China gets it and gives large tax breaks to R&D and other high tech companies. There are plenty of American companies moving to China, including tech ones nowadays.
It's the government that's a parasite, it survives by taking money from the private sector. The larger the taxes, the less money left over for the private sector. During a recession, everyone is broke, so last thing you need is the government taxing and spending more money than before, we can't afford that when we are broke.
Exactly, and since corporate taxes are almost as high as personal income taxes, it's just an incentive to pay out all the profits in bonuses to the top executives instead of saving it.
As far as the 'human rights' I think you mean that they can contribute to elections, as much as they want. Considering Unions, even public sector unions already can do that, and they do by the millions, I don't see how it's reasonable to ban corporations.
They didn't even consider banning Unions unlimited participation in elections, so it seems like a correct Judicial decision to me.
Of course you can. The whole reason we allow debt in the first place is because it allows investment without savings.
You can't borrow money without someone loaning you money, money they have saved.
Now yes it's true the government does print money, effectively stealing money from everyone holding dollars, and then loans that out to the big banks at less than 1% interest right now. But if people weren't saving dollars, it would be impossible to do that. If China and Japan wasn't lending US money at 1% it would also be impossible. We are using the money Chinese citizens are saving to indulge ourselves. Once they cut us off it's a different story.
You can't magically create capital by printing money, but you can steal money from citizens in this way. It's a tax you don't readily see. Japanese citizens are loaning their government lots and lots of money, that's why they can issue government debt.
Why do you think there are countries going bankrupt now; All it takes it one failed bond auction and the free ride is over.
If you could create wealth by printing money, Zimbabwe would be the richest country on earth.
I think it's that the gayer it is, the nicer it is. Think of any nice city, or area of town, it's usually the gayest. Lots of coffee shops and all that.
It was Warren Buffet and his maid, because he makes all his money in stocks and pays mostly just capital gains tax (15% for long term capital gains). He chose to ignore all the taxes that employees at all those companies he owns stocks in pay. All the money he is investing in those companies that's paid out in taxes is all ignored when he says that. He's really paying 15% on top of all those taxes already levied. Capital gains taxes just tax you twice.
I agree, the loop holes need to go away, maybe then taxes could come down. But it's all about loop holes the way it is now, just think of having a 401k. It's just some legal loophole to skirt taxes, not much different than any of these other loop holes. The entire system is just terrible, and the privacy violations from having an income tax are ridiculous.
Corporate income taxes just take it a step further, so that there is no way to save money for future investment without paying a 40% tax, even if you tie it up in a company.
Slashdot Mirror
The battle for online privacy was lost long ago.
So if I post to a public forum I should expect privacy?
What about CC companies selling data, that was going on before the internet, and seems more intrusive than many of these situations.
Sadly, the Internet has become more of an adversarial game than a way to unite people.
I think all those countries having revolutions in the middle east might disagree with you.
Perhaps you had some interoperability issues since Bluray is 24p if it's in 1080p. If you turn off 24p output it just puts out a 29.97fps signal created from the 24p. It's supposed to look very similar, although there is some motion blur added through the interlacing process.
If your TV doesn't support 24p it won't work correctly.
It's naturally smooth, so you instead of your brain imagining the missing frames, you just see them. It can really reduce the ambiance of a movie in a negative way. I didn't believe it until I used avisynth and upped it to 60fps. I always thought 24fps was horribly slow and was a bad thing, but it's really not.
When it's butter smooth it just looks like a nature documentary, not some artistic movie.
No it's true wherever there isn't Capitalism. Mass production and competition drove prices for food, energy, and almost every product down. I didn't see Walmart increasing prices to succeed.
In uncompetitive markets, like this one, is where you see abuse. This is where regulation makes sense. Look what happened to long distance prices after AT&T was broken up.
Yea Obama is like Bush on steroids, so what's to like?
A terabecquerel is just 27 Curies. The capsaicin isn't radioactive.
Capsaicin released endorphins and makes you feels good. It also makes you sweat, which is great in those really hot climates where it grows.
If it's not locked down, and it's becomes really easy to pirate games, nobody will release them for ps3, they'll just put them out for xbox360. So if you are a Sony fanboy of course you are pissed, these hackers are unwanted by the video game community.
Now Sony should have never let linux run on ps3, that really opened the can of worms, and attracted hackers the world over to play with their system. What did they think was going to happen?
MS Xbox has the right idea, although it's less open than the ps3 in some respects. Proprietary charging ports for the controllers and not using bluetooth for the wireless controllers. But there's the xbox indie arcade that let's anyone write programs for $100/yr, what does Sony have?
I still think Sony handled the situation atrociously, and what positive effect did this have at all?
I've had enough and I hope Hollywood goes belly up. New studios, new actors, new directors, and cheaper movies sound fine to me.
Perhaps that sounded to apocalyptic. So let me just add, I'm sure a lot of the good actors, writers and directors would be hired by new companies. But to get management to leave, they need to go bankrupt, so that management gets the blame. But who knows, Obama would probably just bail them out with our money anyway.
You are not a target Audience, the target audience has a big plasma TV with a dedicated Bluray player. If you are stacking up bluray movies in their boxes and everything, it seems logical to put it next to your big TV and bluray player. The DRM is stopping most people from just burning a copies for their friends. What they need to do is to provide is a legal way to download and play them in linux.
What's really ridiculous is that I can rent a DVD for $1 from redbox, which is a physical DVD that is stocked in a physical store, in an expensive machine.
Yet... when I go online it's $5 to rent?! And then you can't even download it to linux anyway, you have to stream through a browser, and it's not even 1080p.
It's amazing pirate sites can offer such ease, yet their legal counterpart offers NO alternative. Compare buying moonshine to going into any liquor store. There isn't rampant illegal alcohol sales because it's so easy to get it legally, and the quality of the legal product is much better.
These big companies could have easily offered alternatives to napster before napster even came out, yet they refused and are still refusing. It's like the drug war, unless you create a totalitarian police state with draconian penalties (Saudi Arabia style), you can't stop it, and even then it's never eradicated, and that's just one small country. The RIAA and MPAA want to police the entire world wide web at that level, HA!
I've had enough and I hope Hollywood goes belly up. New studios, new actors, new directors, and cheaper movies sound fine to me.
As for cost, mathematical software is expensive, and the open source alternatives are NOT user friendly, and have atrocious documentation when compared to Matlab or Mathematica.
I don't see normal teachers getting a grasp of sage or freemat.
Typing in standard math operations is much faster on my calculator. The 89 does derivatives and integrals and solves algebra equations and it's extremely easy to do. Our University didn't even include the symbolic math package in Matlab until 2009! And even then it doesn't do well with analytic equations, Mathematica is better for that, but that costs a lot too and is weak in other areas.
Perhaps in some new age charter school this could be possible, but introducing this stuff to run of the mill $50,000/yr teachers is not as easy as it might seem. I have never used a math program that was as easy to use as a TI calculator, and I have never enjoyed typing in math using a keyboard.
So why spend money on a netbook that is going to have horrible resale value and will be obsolete within years, whereas a calculator has great resale value, and the 89 is already 13 yrs old and still going strong.
To you a calculator might seem like crippled tech, but I'm a grad student in Physics and I still use my 89 just as much as any of the math programs I mentioned. Until I hit grad school, I used the 89 far more than any math programs.
I just rewrote the program after it was cleared. Writing the quadratic formula program takes less than 5 min. Then you do the test in another 5 min. Then just erase the calculator again.
Obviously for people like us it's completely senseless to keep pounding through quadratic formula over and over again, and I am very glad I had the chance to use a computer to do my work for me.
Back then I had a 83, which is usually all that was allowed in high school. Now I have an 89 and it's great, I'm sure the new ones are marginally better.
If you think they are too expensive buy a cheap Casio graphing calculator, it has similar specs and abilities.
I paid a little under $200 for my 89 about 10yrs ago, before the platinum one came out. It still works great, and I have dropped it numerous times, left it in my car for a yr.... and I live in Maine. That means over 100 in the hot sunny summers and down to -20 in winter. It never had any issues, try that with your netbook. No upgrades, no viruses, it just works, instantly.
The batteries last months, not hours. Highly portable, easy to use, it doesn't compare to a netbook. More students will be engineers than math and physics students, so it seems very reasonable to me that are taught to use something they will be able to use for decades to come.
Verizon LTE will be giving you 10mbit connections at least, and that's going to blanket most the the USA.
You don't reinvest all your money right away, then you can't hire new employees, and you'd have to liquidate if you had a bad year. And there are no savings for future investments.
Already 50% of people don't pay income taxes, and the highest tax bracket including state taxes is already over 40%.
Take away 10 million from Leno, and now there is 10 million less in the bank to be loaned out to businesses. Your socialist view that the government would invest that money better than the banks, or Leno's broker, or the mutual funds he owns is only reasonable because you picked a TV celebrity. Most other people work really hard for their money and would invest it well.
How is unemployment good? Nobody having jobs doesn't create a wealthy economy. Now sure, if there was a glut of high skilled workers in a flourishing economy, that would be beneficial to businesses looking to hire those people, but that's not the case.
A cap at 50% is just where it would be without the Bush tax cuts.
Small business is the largest employer in the US, it's sad a couple big companies give all these hard working entrepreneurs a bad name. I agree that protecting large business doesn't really make sense, but almost every law they make to protect us from big businesses just increases the power of bug business and kills off the competition.
I agree, but the previous argument was that since current demand is met, increasing production is pointless.
Obviously as production and supply increases, prices go down, increasing demand. Like what happened with PCs, laptops, smartphones, tablets, and so on.
So the point is to focus on increasing supply, which allows for increased demand. Giving people more money without increasing supply just increases prices, shifts the supply-demand curve, but your purchasing power is stagnant.
Increasing interest rates would encourage savings, which can be lent out to businesses. And, businesses are now more likely to invest, since their customers now have savings.
You have a good point, you're correct, they should pay for those things, but that's only 30% of the budget. Medicaid, Social Security and interest are 50%. I don't think corporations should be paying half their taxes into forced charity programs.
Why on earth would anyone try to increase production for goods that are already cheap and have high market penetration. They need to increase production on more expensive products so that the price can come down. In the US and Europe everyone still wants nicer things but just can't afford them. The majority of people are definitely not satisfied, they would buy more expensive products if they were affordable. Increased production make those expensive products affordable. Investment in R&D makes future products arrive earlier.
I'd imagine little because there wouldn't likely be a significant marked increase in demand. Consumer demand seems rather saturated in most industries (you can only lust for so much food, so many plasma tvs, etc). Consequentially, I'd imagine most such companies wouldn't expand very much. Instead, most likely CEOs and executives would see bigger bonuses and share holders would demand and get bigger dividends.
Demand is unlimited, it's supply that limits how much demand is met. Almost every company listed on the stock market is trying to expand, I have no idea what you are talking about. There are a couple Billion people who'd like cars and washing machines and plasma TVs.
Without businesses there are no jobs. Business owners take risks and create jobs out of thin air. They create value where none existed. They already pay taxes on personal income. If there is a more profitable (they are combining land, labor ,and capital more efficiently) company, they will succeed. If they pay higher salaries they will get better employees, and pay out more taxes. Why are we taxing the people that create jobs and provide wealth?
Businesses are the miracles of capitalism and should be praised. China gets it and gives large tax breaks to R&D and other high tech companies. There are plenty of American companies moving to China, including tech ones nowadays.
It's the government that's a parasite, it survives by taking money from the private sector. The larger the taxes, the less money left over for the private sector. During a recession, everyone is broke, so last thing you need is the government taxing and spending more money than before, we can't afford that when we are broke.
Exactly, and since corporate taxes are almost as high as personal income taxes, it's just an incentive to pay out all the profits in bonuses to the top executives instead of saving it.
As far as the 'human rights' I think you mean that they can contribute to elections, as much as they want. Considering Unions, even public sector unions already can do that, and they do by the millions, I don't see how it's reasonable to ban corporations.
They didn't even consider banning Unions unlimited participation in elections, so it seems like a correct Judicial decision to me.
Well what field is you company in? Sounds like you have no competition if you can just waste half your day on /. and waste profits on vacation houses.
Of course you can. The whole reason we allow debt in the first place is because it allows investment without savings.
You can't borrow money without someone loaning you money, money they have saved.
Now yes it's true the government does print money, effectively stealing money from everyone holding dollars, and then loans that out to the big banks at less than 1% interest right now. But if people weren't saving dollars, it would be impossible to do that. If China and Japan wasn't lending US money at 1% it would also be impossible. We are using the money Chinese citizens are saving to indulge ourselves. Once they cut us off it's a different story.
You can't magically create capital by printing money, but you can steal money from citizens in this way. It's a tax you don't readily see. Japanese citizens are loaning their government lots and lots of money, that's why they can issue government debt.
Why do you think there are countries going bankrupt now; All it takes it one failed bond auction and the free ride is over.
If you could create wealth by printing money, Zimbabwe would be the richest country on earth.
Dividends are paid out, what's left over is corporate profits. Most US stocks don't pay any dividends anyway. It's not given to shareholders.
I think it's that the gayer it is, the nicer it is. Think of any nice city, or area of town, it's usually the gayest. Lots of coffee shops and all that.
It was Warren Buffet and his maid, because he makes all his money in stocks and pays mostly just capital gains tax (15% for long term capital gains). He chose to ignore all the taxes that employees at all those companies he owns stocks in pay. All the money he is investing in those companies that's paid out in taxes is all ignored when he says that. He's really paying 15% on top of all those taxes already levied. Capital gains taxes just tax you twice.
I agree, the loop holes need to go away, maybe then taxes could come down. But it's all about loop holes the way it is now, just think of having a 401k. It's just some legal loophole to skirt taxes, not much different than any of these other loop holes. The entire system is just terrible, and the privacy violations from having an income tax are ridiculous.
Corporate income taxes just take it a step further, so that there is no way to save money for future investment without paying a 40% tax, even if you tie it up in a company.