Your generator is surely not being used all day, every day, to supply all your electricity needs. That makes it very different than a real power plant.
So does my septic tank and sand filtration system.
I have a septic tank as well, but it and a well are a far cry from water recycling plants. When your well runs directly into your septic tank, then we'll talk.
I'm sure someone else was thinking about it well before that. So what?
So it's not the revolutionary concept you claim. It's just a particular implementation that happened to become popular. He deserves credit for the accomplishment, but it's about as worthy of a major award as somebody who modified their car to get better gas mileage...
To be honest, the more important concept was HTTP. Another dead simple implementation. But neither you nor I came up with it, he did.
Gopher had most of the functionality of HTTP, so it's hard to see how that is revolutionary either. It's just another improvement. You don't seem to think the creators of Gopher, FTP, SMTP, etc. should get an award.
Sure, they scrub the exhaust for really harmful chemicals and particles, but they still release a lot of CO2.
But the wood, paper, cardboard, etc., is all carbon-neutral... only releasing the same CO2 that it trapped, a few years earlier, when the tree was growing.
Burning it to generate (needed) electricity is just another type of effective recycling, that happens to save landfill space as well.
Of course, it's not all going to be plant-based wastes, but it will still be significantly cleaner than fossil fuel power plants, in CO2 and other emissions.
Why can't I just install a trash plasma zapper under the sink and skip the expensive middle-man?
For the same reasons you don't have a gasoline power plant in your back yard.
For the same reasons you don't have a sewage/water recycling plant in your back yard.
For the same reasons...
My trash + electricity a month is $200+, I'd love to keep the money in my pocket.
Only a fraction of your trash is properly burnable, so you're still paying for pickup, and it would only supply a fraction of your electric needs, so you're still paying for that, too.
Presumably, this plant will make electricity slightly cheaper everywhere, and trash disposal in the vicinity noticably cheaper as well.
Does this mean that during the last two years, St. Lucie County will be importing trash from other counties?
No, that means they'll finally START burning the trash that has been collecting in the 18 years since the plant began operations.
When they say the "entire landfill"... "will be gone in 18 years", they don't mean it's going to explode, or turn into a black hole. Trash will keep piling up, though, interestingly, not as fast as the plant can dispose of it.
Perhaps that will mean the cost of dumping will drop, and more trash trucks will divert to that dump, instead of going elsewhere.
That is the situation in the Puente Hills landfill (L.A.) as dumping fees are cheaper than elsewhere, in-part because they siphon off the methane, and run a large power plant off of it.
We may well be entering the age of fewer, larger, regional landfills, all making money off of the trash they collect in one way or another.
I'm not going to argue that HTML is a particularly complex invention, but the impact of this simple idea is probably larger then the research of 95% of the Nobel prizes awarded in the last few decades.
The "idea" you're so excited about, is the idea of a markup language, and links, which existed LONG before HTML.
You might as well grant an award for the format of the Apache config file... It probably took years to reach it's current form, and has significant impact on the world...
Would it be too blatantly obvious to mention it enabled the publishing of your comment in the first place?
The format happens to be HTML, but HTML didn't enable the process, or the technology to do it... any more than the PNG image format did.
Practically every liquid, gel, semi-solid, etc. is either water based, or oil based. It doesn't seem like a difficult concept, but people just don't get it.
If it doesn't breakdown when in contact with water (think: chewing gum), it will when in contact with oils. This goes for everything you've ever come across... from reinvigorating dried-out Playdough, to getting gum out of hair, tree sap out of clothes, and yes, getting stickers, adhesive bandages, and labels off, with nominal effort.
I generally hate WD40, because it's almost always used where traditional, better, and more permanent lubricants are actually needed. However, in this particular case, it is one of the better substances for the job...
Spray a little WD-40 around the edges of any sticker, give it just a few seconds, and the glue it touches will break apart into tiny chunks of rubber, and wipe away. A couple sprays, a few seconds, and you can get any sticker off of any surface, without practically any force at all.
Then, you just use hand cleaner (Goop), clothes detergent, or dish soap to cut through the oil, and wash away with water, or a damp towel.
Same goes for heat-sink paste (popular problem here), chewing gum, vasoline, adhesive bandages, electrical tape, tree sap, tar, and practically everything else in the known world.
In lieu of WD-40, whatever oil you happen to have will work nearly as well. Mineral oil, motor oil, cooking oil, etc. Thinner is usually better.
So you think that you understand this better than anyone writing these articles on the internet? I'd say there is about 0% chance of that.
Better than any of the articles that have been linked to, so far.
Beware armchair experts who've never actually had to capture and re-encode video, let alone writing code to improve an actual IVTC filter.
The same site has a $378 HD-DVD player listed. Cherry picking numbers is not helping your argument.
Froogle turned up the Blu-ray player on that site, but not the HD-DVD player. Don't blame me. That is a bit of a discount, yes but still puts BluRay players "significantly" under 2X the price of HD-DVDs, as you keep claiming. Who is cherry-picking their numbers here?
The consumer doesn't care why his video quality is not what he was was expecting.
I'm a consumer, and I care, so it seems you're wrong.
The point is that BluRay is not ready for market
Completely subjective judgement, not based on facts.
Fact: BluRay is significantly more expensive
False. The price difference is insignificant. I can use my own arbitrary definitions for subjective terms, as well.
and was rushed to market.
You're source for this is? You seem to have mistakenly omitted it.
The picture quality is not as good as HD-DVD
The picture quality of DVDs isn't as good as LaserDiscs or S-VHS...
If you don't feel like answering the specific points I raised/asked about, perhaps you shouldn't post in a discussion about it.
Well let's see... I've now posted about a dozen comments in this single thread. You've personally posted about half a dozen, all containing numerous questions within each.
It's one thing to answer questions and debate a topic, but it's quite another having to explain entire concepts to people who don't understand.
I could answer this last set of questions, but I don't believe that would be the end of it at all.
Personally, I'm happy that I can see why 1080p24->1080i60->1080p24 can be done very accurately for HD-DVD, so I believe those who say it doesn't matter.
If you are interested in the subject, as you seem to be, there are numerous references on the web that cover the subject in detail. There are many open-source ivtc filters you can examine if you're interested in code. And there are numerous downloadable video samples showing many different screwed-up telecine patterns.
I would recomend the mailing-lists for open source video playback and encoding software, like MPlayer, xine, vlc, transcode, avisynth, etc.
For your specific question, you need only search for "weird telecine pattern", "mixed hard soft telecine", "custom telecine" or something similar, and you'll find more examples than you could possibly want.
They seem to think that near-perfect IVTC is now pretty common.
"They" seem to think that IVTC is "deinterlacing". They don't even specifically mention IVTC, so it's impossible to guess why they're reaching the conclusions they are. I'd just have to guess from the repeated mistakes, that they simply don't know what they are talking about, and believe whatever the company press-release tells them.
All they have to do is examine several fields and check if they are the same, to see where in the 3:2 sequence the frames are.
Telecine has never been a strict pattern. You can't just assume the pattern is in strict cadence, or you'll be wrong all the time. Also, delaying video output by 10 or more frames to compare, and look for telecine, would be utterly unacceptable. More than 1/3rd of a second of delay, before the picture appears/responds/etc..
The only way to do it is to compare adjacent fields, and see if they look like they match. It's one of those problems that you need a full-fledged computer to do in realtime. HDTVs don't contain full-fledged computers, and even if they did, the latest PCs still struggle to do (*good*) IVTC on 1920x1080 content.
you say it's not perfect, but everyone else thinks it's close enough that it doesn't matter.
I say the Earth is round, too. I'm not going to put a lot of effort into arguing with the self-proclaimed "experts" who simply dismiss all evidence and claim it's flat.
Those guys haven't even demonstrated that they know the difference between interlaced video, and telecined film. So, baring any additional evidence, it's safe to assume they are, indeed, stupid (on this subject, at least).
better quality which could be enjoyed immediately with just a DVD player (no need to upgrade the TV),
At the time, most TVs didn't have S-Video connections, which were needed to get the better resolution out of DVDs. Look at the popularity of RF converters at the time. With that, you're barely getting any quality improvements at all, and with the switch to widescreen, it could be considered a net loss.
The only thing the new formats really offer over and above DVD is an improvement in quality (which arguably doesn't match the jump from VHS > DVD)
Arguable only by complete idiots who have no idea what they are talking about, and have never seen an HDTV in action.
DVD to highdef is a 6X improvement, while VHS to DVD was a 3X improvement AT BEST.
but a hugely expensive new television
Nobody is going to go out and buy a new TV to watch HD-DVD/Bluray. It's those that are already getting a new TV that will invest in a highdef disc format to get the full quality out of their HDTVs.
(and a lot of the hugely expensive televisions people have bought already, thinking they will work with the new disc formats, won't give the expected benefits).
No, actually both formats will output full resolution over component outputs, so you'll get the full resolution. It's only in the distant future when that restriction may be enabled.
In order to get this improvement in quality, people will have to give up any rights to do what they like with their media
You could have said the exact same thing about DVDs, but CSS didn't slow their adoption at all.
Well, of course you might be right, but you're one person on Slashdot claiming that numerous articles on well-established home-theatre sites out there are wrong.
Slashdot isn't a hive mind. Here, you can find and talk with the preeminent experts on any technical subject you could want to. You should really pay attention to usernames, and look into comment histories to see who knows what they are talking about.
"Both HD-DVD and Blu-ray have all of the progressively scanned 1080-lines per frame of information on the disc, and this information is not lost or compromised in 1080i transmission." etc...
All of which is true. The information is on the disc, and ALL of it is transfered in the interlaced signal. The problem is that it's very difficult to convert that interlaced signal back into progressive form, without any mistakes. Telecine can be very complex.
As I said before... Try to explain the existance of progressive-scan DVD players, since you believe I'm wrong.
I don't believe that diplays have to do inverse telecine, as there is no motion between the interlaced frames to compensate for. But please explain more.
3:2 pulldown means your HD-DVD / DVD player takes the 23.976fps material, and uses the flags set in the header to make it into interlaced 29.97fps material.
Duplicating every 4th frame to get 29.97fps out of 23.976 would look HORRIBLE, on interlaced or progressive displays. So what they do is duplicate a top field, then a bottom field to get 5 fields out of 4 frames, hence the 3:2 notation. This looks much smoother, but results in the artifact known as judder. If you want to find articles about 3:2 pulldown from people who know what they are talking about, you should search for "judder".
Of course, both of those are very simple examples, trying to explain the concept, rather than the whole reality of the situation, and all the screwed-up telecine patterns.
Obviously you didn't do your research. There are many many descriptions on the internet that go into the details of why 1080i and 1080p are essentially identical for movies.
I don't need to do any research. I understand the issues better than the people writing any of these articles you can link to.
You're quite simply never going to find a TV that does perfect pulldown reversal (IVTC), and that's all there is to it.
Thought experiment for you... Why would anybody buy a progressive-scan DVD player, if their HDTVs can do perfect IVTC anyhow?
Picture quality.
There is NOTHING which makes HD-DVD inherently better quality than BluRay. They are about the same capacity right now (with more room for improvements in Blu-ray), they support all the same video codecs, etc. The fact that the studios chose to do a half-assed job on their first Blu-ray titles doesn't say anything about either format.
As a benchmark I went on Google's Froogle service and found the Samsung BluRay palyer [sic] (cheapest I have seen) low price is $850. On the same search site the Toshiba HD-DVD player was available for $420.
Froogle isn't a very good source, but since you want to cite them:
1080i and 1080p provide exactly the same resolution as far as movies go.
Not at all.
That whole article is based on an obviously bullshit premise, that "there are essentially no 1080i TVs anymore".
The guy doesn't know the difference between deinterlacing, and inversing telecine. Yet he assumes all TVs can do perfect "deinterlacing" (inverse telecine).
HD-DVD has a huge edge over BluRay right now because it is ready for market
Name one thing that makes HD-DVD "ready for market" that Bluray is failing in.
and is half the cost.
The cheaper HD-DVD player is $500, while the cheaper Bluray players are $600. That's not half...
It sure would be good to have an early winner.
No, it would be better if they both had to fight it out, and dramatically lower their prices to try and get a one-up on the other for a while.
You mean like DVD was dropped? Nope, once they commit billions to pushing a format that have to follow through.
You got the complete opposite of what the parent was actually saying. He said that if it DOESN'T get cracked, people won't adopt them. Which doesn't actually seem to likely, as DVD adoption was quite fast, long before DeCSS and css-auth came along.
If you have XvMC support you should be golden.
XVMC is (almost) exclusively for MPEG-1/2, and not for VC-1, h.264, etc.
And, with a fast enough computer, XVMC is actually slower than software-decoding.
Didn't buy DVD until DVD Jon make it usable.
That doesn't make it legal. It'll be real interesting if companies ever decide to crack down on everyone who is breaking the DMCA.
JPEG uses discrete cosine transforms, whereas JPEG2000 uses wavelet transforms, which are much better at representing non-periodic data, like you'd see in motion video.
Problem is, the video you're sending to your HDTV, from ANY SOURCE, is already DCT-encoded... MPEG-2, VC-1, H.264, etc. All of them use DCT. So, lossy wavelet recompression of the decompressed DCT signal is just introducing another set of artifacts on top. JPEG (at highest quality) would certainly be much closer, and introduce less quality loss.
Power over Ethernet could power some of the lesser boxes, like cable modems.
PoE is a mess. It's cheaper to give out wall warts than to include the circuitry to allow a device to operate on a wide range of voltages (necesary because ethernet is high resistance, so voltage varies dramatically by distance).
That "30 meter UWB" link will turn out to be a huge pain.
If walking into a drugstore can give you cancer, then that's so obviously wrong it should be remedied.
You call my analogies strawmen, and then turn around and ignore everything I've said, and give the most utterly outlandish bullshit senarios you can come up with.
Nothing is sure to cause cancer, and those that can are usually only after long-term exposure. So even if the drug has airborn agents that can potentially cause cancer, it would still almost certainly be a risk solely to employees who are there for several hours every day, and even then probably still only a tiny chance of anything ever happening to them.
That is/would-be a very good reason to put a warning up, but not a good enough reason to condemn the building.
Now, this is the second time I've said just about exactly this same thing. If you're just going to continue ignoring it, I'll make sure to ignore your future comments.
The fact that you haven't seen it points out how well those stupid signs have become part of the background noise. Look harder next time and you'll see it.
I'm a meticulous person... The kind who reads contracts beginning to end, every time. If I haven't seen it, it's either not there, or been well-hidden.
Though, I haven't been to any drug stores recently.
The motion compensation algorithm is based off Tom's Mocomp
Ah, well that is extremely CPU-intensive at it's maximum, and can hardly be considered a motion compensating deinterlacer at it's minimum. So, saying it doesn't use up much CPU power is somewhat specious.
mcdeint just doesn't have any such threshold, and is always at it's max. It would be interesting to compare the two, and see which is better.
Do you live in California? The stickers are everywhere, maybe you just missed them but every Safeway, Mervyns, Fast food joint, well heck they are everywhere!
Yes, I live in So Cal.
There's no prop 65 warning on the Mervyns near me, none on or around the fast food restaurnts I go to (and I go to a lot of them), etc. No safeway around here, so I can't comment on that one.
Slashdot Mirror
Your generator is surely not being used all day, every day, to supply all your electricity needs. That makes it very different than a real power plant.
I have a septic tank as well, but it and a well are a far cry from water recycling plants. When your well runs directly into your septic tank, then we'll talk.
None of this changes any of the reasons I posted.
So it's not the revolutionary concept you claim. It's just a particular implementation that happened to become popular. He deserves credit for the accomplishment, but it's about as worthy of a major award as somebody who modified their car to get better gas mileage...
Gopher had most of the functionality of HTTP, so it's hard to see how that is revolutionary either. It's just another improvement. You don't seem to think the creators of Gopher, FTP, SMTP, etc. should get an award.
But the wood, paper, cardboard, etc., is all carbon-neutral... only releasing the same CO2 that it trapped, a few years earlier, when the tree was growing.
Burning it to generate (needed) electricity is just another type of effective recycling, that happens to save landfill space as well.
Of course, it's not all going to be plant-based wastes, but it will still be significantly cleaner than fossil fuel power plants, in CO2 and other emissions.
For the same reasons you don't have a gasoline power plant in your back yard.
For the same reasons you don't have a sewage/water recycling plant in your back yard.
For the same reasons...
Only a fraction of your trash is properly burnable, so you're still paying for pickup, and it would only supply a fraction of your electric needs, so you're still paying for that, too.
Presumably, this plant will make electricity slightly cheaper everywhere, and trash disposal in the vicinity noticably cheaper as well.
No, that means they'll finally START burning the trash that has been collecting in the 18 years since the plant began operations.
When they say the "entire landfill"
Perhaps that will mean the cost of dumping will drop, and more trash trucks will divert to that dump, instead of going elsewhere.
That is the situation in the Puente Hills landfill (L.A.) as dumping fees are cheaper than elsewhere, in-part because they siphon off the methane, and run a large power plant off of it.
We may well be entering the age of fewer, larger, regional landfills, all making money off of the trash they collect in one way or another.
The "idea" you're so excited about, is the idea of a markup language, and links, which existed LONG before HTML.
You might as well grant an award for the format of the Apache config file... It probably took years to reach it's current form, and has significant impact on the world...
The format happens to be HTML, but HTML didn't enable the process, or the technology to do it... any more than the PNG image format did.
Practically every liquid, gel, semi-solid, etc. is either water based, or oil based. It doesn't seem like a difficult concept, but people just don't get it.
If it doesn't breakdown when in contact with water (think: chewing gum), it will when in contact with oils. This goes for everything you've ever come across... from reinvigorating dried-out Playdough, to getting gum out of hair, tree sap out of clothes, and yes, getting stickers, adhesive bandages, and labels off, with nominal effort.
I generally hate WD40, because it's almost always used where traditional, better, and more permanent lubricants are actually needed. However, in this particular case, it is one of the better substances for the job...
Spray a little WD-40 around the edges of any sticker, give it just a few seconds, and the glue it touches will break apart into tiny chunks of rubber, and wipe away. A couple sprays, a few seconds, and you can get any sticker off of any surface, without practically any force at all.
Then, you just use hand cleaner (Goop), clothes detergent, or dish soap to cut through the oil, and wash away with water, or a damp towel.
Same goes for heat-sink paste (popular problem here), chewing gum, vasoline, adhesive bandages, electrical tape, tree sap, tar, and practically everything else in the known world.
In lieu of WD-40, whatever oil you happen to have will work nearly as well. Mineral oil, motor oil, cooking oil, etc. Thinner is usually better.
Better than any of the articles that have been linked to, so far.
Beware armchair experts who've never actually had to capture and re-encode video, let alone writing code to improve an actual IVTC filter.
Froogle turned up the Blu-ray player on that site, but not the HD-DVD player. Don't blame me.
That is a bit of a discount, yes but still puts BluRay players "significantly" under 2X the price of HD-DVDs, as you keep claiming. Who is cherry-picking their numbers here?
I'm a consumer, and I care, so it seems you're wrong.
Completely subjective judgement, not based on facts.
False. The price difference is insignificant. I can use my own arbitrary definitions for subjective terms, as well.
You're source for this is? You seem to have mistakenly omitted it.
The picture quality of DVDs isn't as good as LaserDiscs or S-VHS...
Well let's see... I've now posted about a dozen comments in this single thread. You've personally posted about half a dozen, all containing numerous questions within each.
It's one thing to answer questions and debate a topic, but it's quite another having to explain entire concepts to people who don't understand.
I could answer this last set of questions, but I don't believe that would be the end of it at all.
Good for you. The Earth still isn't flat.
If you are interested in the subject, as you seem to be, there are numerous references on the web that cover the subject in detail. There are many open-source ivtc filters you can examine if you're interested in code. And there are numerous downloadable video samples showing many different screwed-up telecine patterns.
I would recomend the mailing-lists for open source video playback and encoding software, like MPlayer, xine, vlc, transcode, avisynth, etc.
For your specific question, you need only search for "weird telecine pattern", "mixed hard soft telecine", "custom telecine" or something similar, and you'll find more examples than you could possibly want.
"They" seem to think that IVTC is "deinterlacing". They don't even specifically mention IVTC, so it's impossible to guess why they're reaching the conclusions they are. I'd just have to guess from the repeated mistakes, that they simply don't know what they are talking about, and believe whatever the company press-release tells them.
Telecine has never been a strict pattern. You can't just assume the pattern is in strict cadence, or you'll be wrong all the time. Also, delaying video output by 10 or more frames to compare, and look for telecine, would be utterly unacceptable. More than 1/3rd of a second of delay, before the picture appears/responds/etc..
The only way to do it is to compare adjacent fields, and see if they look like they match. It's one of those problems that you need a full-fledged computer to do in realtime. HDTVs don't contain full-fledged computers, and even if they did, the latest PCs still struggle to do (*good*) IVTC on 1920x1080 content.
I say the Earth is round, too. I'm not going to put a lot of effort into arguing with the self-proclaimed "experts" who simply dismiss all evidence and claim it's flat.
Those guys haven't even demonstrated that they know the difference between interlaced video, and telecined film. So, baring any additional evidence, it's safe to assume they are, indeed, stupid (on this subject, at least).
Interoperability is highly desirable, but it isn't the be-all-end-all.
If, for whatever reason, I need more wireless bandwidth than 802.11a/g offers RIGHT NOW, I'm going to buy a draft MIMO device, period.
Sometimes, you can't wait 2+ years, for the standard to be finalized.
Most users shouldn't buy-in, but there are lots of reasons someone might need to.
Thank you for riding with Johnny Cabs.
At the time, most TVs didn't have S-Video connections, which were needed to get the better resolution out of DVDs. Look at the popularity of RF converters at the time. With that, you're barely getting any quality improvements at all, and with the switch to widescreen, it could be considered a net loss.
Arguable only by complete idiots who have no idea what they are talking about, and have never seen an HDTV in action.
DVD to highdef is a 6X improvement, while VHS to DVD was a 3X improvement AT BEST.
Nobody is going to go out and buy a new TV to watch HD-DVD/Bluray. It's those that are already getting a new TV that will invest in a highdef disc format to get the full quality out of their HDTVs.
No, actually both formats will output full resolution over component outputs, so you'll get the full resolution. It's only in the distant future when that restriction may be enabled.
You could have said the exact same thing about DVDs, but CSS didn't slow their adoption at all.
Slashdot isn't a hive mind. Here, you can find and talk with the preeminent experts on any technical subject you could want to. You should really pay attention to usernames, and look into comment histories to see who knows what they are talking about.
All of which is true. The information is on the disc, and ALL of it is transfered in the interlaced signal. The problem is that it's very difficult to convert that interlaced signal back into progressive form, without any mistakes. Telecine can be very complex.
As I said before... Try to explain the existance of progressive-scan DVD players, since you believe I'm wrong.
3:2 pulldown means your HD-DVD / DVD player takes the 23.976fps material, and uses the flags set in the header to make it into interlaced 29.97fps material.
Duplicating every 4th frame to get 29.97fps out of 23.976 would look HORRIBLE, on interlaced or progressive displays. So what they do is duplicate a top field, then a bottom field to get 5 fields out of 4 frames, hence the 3:2 notation. This looks much smoother, but results in the artifact known as judder. If you want to find articles about 3:2 pulldown from people who know what they are talking about, you should search for "judder".
A quick google search turned up this:
http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/pulldown.htm
And the Wikipedia article isn't too bad either:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecine#3:2_pulldow
Of course, both of those are very simple examples, trying to explain the concept, rather than the whole reality of the situation, and all the screwed-up telecine patterns.
I don't need to do any research. I understand the issues better than the people writing any of these articles you can link to.
You're quite simply never going to find a TV that does perfect pulldown reversal (IVTC), and that's all there is to it.
Thought experiment for you... Why would anybody buy a progressive-scan DVD player, if their HDTVs can do perfect IVTC anyhow?
There is NOTHING which makes HD-DVD inherently better quality than BluRay. They are about the same capacity right now (with more room for improvements in Blu-ray), they support all the same video codecs, etc. The fact that the studios chose to do a half-assed job on their first Blu-ray titles doesn't say anything about either format.
Froogle isn't a very good source, but since you want to cite them:
$650 Blu-ray Player easily found via Froogle: http://www.dealznet.com/item.aspx?eid=1&pid=10366
Not at all.
That whole article is based on an obviously bullshit premise, that "there are essentially no 1080i TVs anymore".
The guy doesn't know the difference between deinterlacing, and inversing telecine. Yet he assumes all TVs can do perfect "deinterlacing" (inverse telecine).
Name one thing that makes HD-DVD "ready for market" that Bluray is failing in.
The cheaper HD-DVD player is $500, while the cheaper Bluray players are $600. That's not half...
No, it would be better if they both had to fight it out, and dramatically lower their prices to try and get a one-up on the other for a while.
Funny, I was using different desktop pictures back in GNOME 1.x, when Enlightenment was the common/default WM (before Sawfish).
Is there something I don't know about, these days, that prevents GNOME users from using other window managers?
You got the complete opposite of what the parent was actually saying. He said that if it DOESN'T get cracked, people won't adopt them. Which doesn't actually seem to likely, as DVD adoption was quite fast, long before DeCSS and css-auth came along.
XVMC is (almost) exclusively for MPEG-1/2, and not for VC-1, h.264, etc.
And, with a fast enough computer, XVMC is actually slower than software-decoding.
That doesn't make it legal. It'll be real interesting if companies ever decide to crack down on everyone who is breaking the DMCA.
Bluray is only single-layer, but it is still in full res, and FAR better than DVD. Compare 9GB DVDs with 25GB Blurays.
HD-DVD is only 5GBs larger than Bluray, at this point in time, and can't even output 1080p. How is that better?
Besides, this will be a non-issue as soon as the first dual-layer Bluray discs are pressed, and it completely leapfrogs HD-DVD.
Problem is, the video you're sending to your HDTV, from ANY SOURCE, is already DCT-encoded... MPEG-2, VC-1, H.264, etc. All of them use DCT. So, lossy wavelet recompression of the decompressed DCT signal is just introducing another set of artifacts on top. JPEG (at highest quality) would certainly be much closer, and introduce less quality loss.
But less than DVI or firewire...
PoE is a mess. It's cheaper to give out wall warts than to include the circuitry to allow a device to operate on a wide range of voltages (necesary because ethernet is high resistance, so voltage varies dramatically by distance).
Agreed, it's just some marketing BS.
You call my analogies strawmen, and then turn around and ignore everything I've said, and give the most utterly outlandish bullshit senarios you can come up with.
Nothing is sure to cause cancer, and those that can are usually only after long-term exposure. So even if the drug has airborn agents that can potentially cause cancer, it would still almost certainly be a risk solely to employees who are there for several hours every day, and even then probably still only a tiny chance of anything ever happening to them.
That is/would-be a very good reason to put a warning up, but not a good enough reason to condemn the building.
Now, this is the second time I've said just about exactly this same thing. If you're just going to continue ignoring it, I'll make sure to ignore your future comments.
I'm a meticulous person... The kind who reads contracts beginning to end, every time. If I haven't seen it, it's either not there, or been well-hidden.
Though, I haven't been to any drug stores recently.
Ah, well that is extremely CPU-intensive at it's maximum, and can hardly be considered a motion compensating deinterlacer at it's minimum. So, saying it doesn't use up much CPU power is somewhat specious.
mcdeint just doesn't have any such threshold, and is always at it's max. It would be interesting to compare the two, and see which is better.
Yes, I live in So Cal.
There's no prop 65 warning on the Mervyns near me, none on or around the fast food restaurnts I go to (and I go to a lot of them), etc. No safeway around here, so I can't comment on that one.