I'm getting oh-so-tired of repeating the same facts over and over again. It's like people refuse to hear anything that doesn't happen to support the opinions they've already established.
In contrast, a 42" HDTV and a BlueRay player will require a complete upgrade.
People aren't going to go out and buy an HDTV so they can use their HD-DVD/Blu-ray player. Quite the opposite. People are already buying HDTVs for many reasons, and that number will steadily increase.
So no, I don't think people will care about these HD formats any more than they care about Super Audio CD or DVD Audio, which is to say, not much at all...
There's a fundamental difference here. Anybody can see a 6X increase in resolution. Few if anyone can actually HEAR the difference between 44.1Khz 16bit PCM and DVD-Audio/SACD.
Exisiting DVD still looks quite strong since the quality improvements gained from DVD to Blu-Ray/HD-DVD arn't nearly as compelling as the gains when moving from VHS to DVD.
Right, the 6X increase in resolution from DVDs to HighDef isn't nearly as compelling as the 3X increase in resolution from VHS to DVD.
Movies via the internet is more paletable every day with data rates improving and the cost of storage decreasing.
Movies: yes. Highdef movies: No. It will take days to download a 50GB Blu-ray DVD rip on all but the very fastest connections, assuming you do nothing else with the connection at the time.
That's not to mention that you've got to STORE that data somehow, and buying pre-pressed Blu-ray discs is much cheaper than burning to 10+ DVD-Rs, external hard drives, etc.
Another day smashing/. myths... Can't we let these VHS/DVD/HiDef myths die already?
Many people just did buy DVD within the past few years and would be unlikely to dump that "investment" too quickly for something new.
Unlike the switch from VHS to DVD, these new highdef players WILL be able to PLAY all the old DVDs you already own. There's no reason to get rid of/replace your library. Though I suspect many people will still WANT to get highdef copies of some of the DVDs they already have.
Unlike the switch from VHS to DVD, people also have to buy an HD set/monitor to take advantage of what (HD/BR)-DVD has to offer
During the switch to DVD, a great many sets didn't have composite or S-Video connectors needed. Hence the popularity of RF converters. Not to mention people didn't have the 5.1 channel dolby digital surround-sound recievers needed to "take advantage of what [DVDs had] to offer".
But a lot of that content is not HD, so there's no advantage to offer it in
Any film made since Edison's first reels is more than capable of highdef. The ONLY THING you're talking about is older TV shows and other cheap productions, which are only a very small part of DVD sales. Pretty much any significant TV show in the past 5+ years has been recorded in highdef, even if it's not broadcast as such.
However, the software was terrible for audio (you had to record directly into the audio jack)
WTF? What "software"? The early minidiscs sure as hell didn't come with ANY software. It wasn't until the NetMDs, very late in the game, that USB support and Windows software was included. Before then, it was a push of the record button, and unpause Winamp/XMMS/etc.
You're right that MiniDiscs could easily have been positioned as floppy-disc replacements, however, other attempts at the same market, like DVD-RAM drives, haven't exactly set the world on fire.
You just seem extremely confused about what MD did and didn't have, and when.
I don't even know what a digital audio recorder is.
Any audio device which records digitally, and has digital I/O. DAT tapes, Mini-Discs, stand-alone CD-audio recorders, maybe DVHS, standalone DVD-recorders, etc.
But I have to say that I am quite happy with my cassette radio that still works after over 10 years of use.
Random access is an unbelivably huge improvement, if you ever do any recording. Unfortunately, thanks to SCMS, you really can only use a standalone computer (preferably a laptop/large PDA) to get it in a fully usable form.
Is it just me or do I hear this revolution tone more and more often ?
It's just you noticing it. Talk of revolution is a staple subject for many kinds of idiots. Only fools speak of revolution lightly, particularly when the issues at hand are brand new, and haven't had time to be dealt with by a few changes of representation, and tests in the courts.
Talk of revolution is one of avoiding reality. --John Kenneth Galbraith
A revolution is not a bed of roses. --Fidel Castro
The Revolution is like Saturn - it eats its own children. --Georg Buchner
Re:more proof the RIAA/MPAA are insane
on
Death By DMCA
·
· Score: 1
If the networks can no longer count on people watching at least some ads, how are they to pay for content?
You're just looking at it from the wrong angle.
It is the networks that need to REMOVE the REASONS people WANT to skip commercial breaks in the first place.
First off, they need to make commericals far, far less annoying. No more quickly flashing visuals, no more high-speed voices, no more repeating phrases (and phone numbers) 3+ times in a row. No more content-less ads. No more extra-loud commercials. etc.
Second, they'd do well to make commercial breaks MUCH shorter (as in 60 seconds each), and somewhat more frequent to compensate (see next point).
Third, there should be far fewer commercials overall. 1/3rd of a program being commercials is ridiculous. Particularly annoying when a large portion of them are ads you've seen 10 times, each, just in the past couple hours. The only reason it's currently that way is that their audience has been captive so long, networks felt free to abuse them with endless annoying ads to make just a few dollars more in the short-term (and less in the long-term).
Networks could quite easily require individual commercials to be much longer, dictate the content, require them to be more universal, requiring them to be less irritating to large segments of the population, and charging MUCH MORE MONEY for less time, since they would then be delivering the holy grail of advertising: "standing out from the noise".
What's most important about the above is that all of this would not only make ads more often viewed on DVRs, but would mean less often Muted TVs, less bathroom breaks, less channel-surfing during the breaks, and yes, less unrelated conversations during the ads. .
Besides all of this, though, is the fact that networks are already digging deep into product placement, and pop-up ads during the programs. Again, they want to heap ads on top of ads, on top of ads, profiting in the short-term. If they're going to do that anyway, then they shouldn't have ANY commercial breaks. It's just a matter of time until the ads are the show, and the actual program is the 1/3rd of the airtime...
And, of course, there's nothing that gives them the right to make a profit. They're leasing the public's airwaves for the right to try to make a profit. There's absolutely, positively no reason we should be outlawing something that MAY, POTENTIALLY, cut down on that profit. That's beyond ridiculous. If they can't make a profit, fine. Give the airwaves back, and let some other company have a try. That's just simple competition in a changing marketplace for you. Maybe ad-supported TV just simply ISN'T the future. Maybe OnDemand, Netflix, and "Premium" ala-cart paid channels are.
Re:here's the proof that they're evil
on
Death By DMCA
·
· Score: 1
Thank you for proving that HTML has no copy protection, and therefore does not fall under the DMCA...
Re:Proof we are not a democracy
on
Death By DMCA
·
· Score: 1
This is yet more evidence that we are not a democracy.
We are not, nor have we ever been, a democracy. We are a Republic, where you democratically elect your representatives, and they make the laws.
That has both good and bad aspects to it.
It means that both good and bad laws can be passed when the majority does not support them. It also means you almost always have much smarter people than average making the decisions. On the downside, corruption of every kind is a serious issue. Considering the history of the U.S., I'd say it generally works out for the better, and the negatives get worked out in future congresses, or in the courts, if you're willing to wait a good period time.
And remember:
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. --Alexander Tytler
Print to PDFs work by printing the document as an "image" and then essentially saving that inside of a PDF.
Absolutely, positively untrue, and I can't imagine where you cooked this idea up from.
Pretty much every program on the planet can print to Postscript, (that's certainly not an image-only format) and it's just a short jump from there to converting it into a PDF.
Microsoft doesn't make a PDF reader, so there's no reason for them to "extend" the PDF spec.
Microsoft doesn't make a PDF reader... yet! YET!!!.
They don't make a PDF writer yet either.
Certainly, securing the rights to add propritary tags to written PDFs (preferably first under some innocent-looking senario) would be the first step in doing either.
THINK: while the baby is in the belly, as he said, the mother and child DO NOT REPRESENT DIFFRENT ORGANISMS. period.
Oh, I see. So siamese twins can "excise" each other. Just wondering which one gets priority to "excise" the other one. Is it the biggest of the two, or perhaps the one on the right???
When the baby is outside of the mother, this is no longer the case
The baby is just as dependant on it's parents the first few years after it is born, so you need something more to back-up the claim that this is somehow a radically different situation.
yeah thought doesn't come easy to you types, i know, sorry to have to do that to you.
I'm the one trying to bring some logic to this discussion, not shouting baseless assertions and insults as you are. Who's the ignorant fool here?
but I can't see how theories about speciation over millions of years could be either falsified or tested repeatedly. In what sense, then, are they scientific?
You can't test evolution over millions of years. You can, however, test most fascets of it over much shorter spans of time, and potentially disprove it based upon that evidence.
Yet why should she be killed when there were people who were willing to take care of her?
Because she expressed that was what she wanted. Here's a better question. Why should someone else's money and wishes be reason to usurp your own wishes?
It wasn't about Teri, since she couldn't possibly care.
She did care, and expressed her feelings to her husband, who carried them out, refused 10 million dollars, and stood up to the governments of Florida and the U.S. senate in the process.
Personally, I think we failed miserably.
That's because you're imposing your own beliefs and wishes on someone else, who did not share them. You believe in life, no matter what, over the rule of law, and the wishes of the individual and spouse. I should also point out that your are in a very, very small minority (perhaps 20% at best).
Democrats (as a terrible over generalization) tend to see corporations as these large entities with lots of money and no mouths to feed, that are oppressing those that are working for them. Where as Republicans (similar terrible generalization) tend to see large corporations as the number one employer of Americans, and representing a huge amount of American wealth.
I think you can sum this up nicely by saying that Democrats think the people should be protected from corporations (consumer protection laws, environmental laws, etc), and Republicans think corporations should be protected from the people (tort reform*, reducing company taxes, subsudies, etc).
Note: "Tort Reform" is the political code-word for preventing individuals from being able to sue companies for blatantly violating contracts, selling defective products, etc.
You just can't stop data collection. It's going to happen, it's already happening, it's been happening. [...] What needs to be stopped it the misuse of data. I should be guaranteed by law the right to completely and freely see, without being charged, at any time, any and all information that any organization, business, or the government has on me, and I should be able to challenge the accuracy of the data and get corrections made in a timely manner.
Sounds good! The government can install video cameras in your home, as long as you're able to get a copy of it, and challenge the accuracy of it...
But then I realize I shouldn't get all worked up over the US Government doing this, I need to get worked up over my fellow Citizens who are letting this happen by not voicing Outrage.
Right... don't ever do anything constructive...
Instead, you should complain as much as possible that NOBODY is doing anything constructive.
"Today a Washington Post story discusses the vast U.S. bank of genetic material it has gathered over the last few years.
I have a question... Why would the Washington Post have a vast bank of genetic material, and why would they write a story to discuss how much it has gathered over the years.
Slashdot Mirror
Already covered this in another thread: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=187539&cid=15
I'm getting oh-so-tired of repeating the same facts over and over again. It's like people refuse to hear anything that doesn't happen to support the opinions they've already established.
People aren't going to go out and buy an HDTV so they can use their HD-DVD/Blu-ray player. Quite the opposite. People are already buying HDTVs for many reasons, and that number will steadily increase.
There's a fundamental difference here. Anybody can see a 6X increase in resolution. Few if anyone can actually HEAR the difference between 44.1Khz 16bit PCM and DVD-Audio/SACD.
Right, the 6X increase in resolution from DVDs to HighDef isn't nearly as compelling as the 3X increase in resolution from VHS to DVD.
Movies: yes. Highdef movies: No. It will take days to download a 50GB Blu-ray DVD rip on all but the very fastest connections, assuming you do nothing else with the connection at the time.
That's not to mention that you've got to STORE that data somehow, and buying pre-pressed Blu-ray discs is much cheaper than burning to 10+ DVD-Rs, external hard drives, etc.
Unlike the switch from VHS to DVD, these new highdef players WILL be able to PLAY all the old DVDs you already own. There's no reason to get rid of/replace your library. Though I suspect many people will still WANT to get highdef copies of some of the DVDs they already have.
During the switch to DVD, a great many sets didn't have composite or S-Video connectors needed. Hence the popularity of RF converters. Not to mention people didn't have the 5.1 channel dolby digital surround-sound recievers needed to "take advantage of what [DVDs had] to offer".
Any film made since Edison's first reels is more than capable of highdef. The ONLY THING you're talking about is older TV shows and other cheap productions, which are only a very small part of DVD sales. Pretty much any significant TV show in the past 5+ years has been recorded in highdef, even if it's not broadcast as such.
I doubt you've ever actually seen HDTV, nor have the moderators that gave you points.
I like to copy/record/capture VHS tapes -- something that'll be nerfed with DVDs.
Oh, right...
WTF? What "software"? The early minidiscs sure as hell didn't come with ANY software. It wasn't until the NetMDs, very late in the game, that USB support and Windows software was included. Before then, it was a push of the record button, and unpause Winamp/XMMS/etc.
You're right that MiniDiscs could easily have been positioned as floppy-disc replacements, however, other attempts at the same market, like DVD-RAM drives, haven't exactly set the world on fire.
You just seem extremely confused about what MD did and didn't have, and when.
Any audio device which records digitally, and has digital I/O. DAT tapes, Mini-Discs, stand-alone CD-audio recorders, maybe DVHS, standalone DVD-recorders, etc.
Random access is an unbelivably huge improvement, if you ever do any recording. Unfortunately, thanks to SCMS, you really can only use a standalone computer (preferably a laptop/large PDA) to get it in a fully usable form.
Wow! I can't remember how long it's been since I've heard from someone who has never bought a single DVD (CSS).
Or any digital audio recorders (SCMS).
Never owned any videogames.
Doesn't subscribe to digital cable or satellite TV...
etc.
It's just you noticing it. Talk of revolution is a staple subject for many kinds of idiots. Only fools speak of revolution lightly, particularly when the issues at hand are brand new, and haven't had time to be dealt with by a few changes of representation, and tests in the courts.
You're just looking at it from the wrong angle.
It is the networks that need to REMOVE the REASONS people WANT to skip commercial breaks in the first place.
First off, they need to make commericals far, far less annoying. No more quickly flashing visuals, no more high-speed voices, no more repeating phrases (and phone numbers) 3+ times in a row. No more content-less ads. No more extra-loud commercials. etc.
Second, they'd do well to make commercial breaks MUCH shorter (as in 60 seconds each), and somewhat more frequent to compensate (see next point).
Third, there should be far fewer commercials overall. 1/3rd of a program being commercials is ridiculous. Particularly annoying when a large portion of them are ads you've seen 10 times, each, just in the past couple hours. The only reason it's currently that way is that their audience has been captive so long, networks felt free to abuse them with endless annoying ads to make just a few dollars more in the short-term (and less in the long-term).
Networks could quite easily require individual commercials to be much longer, dictate the content, require them to be more universal, requiring them to be less irritating to large segments of the population, and charging MUCH MORE MONEY for less time, since they would then be delivering the holy grail of advertising: "standing out from the noise".
What's most important about the above is that all of this would not only make ads more often viewed on DVRs, but would mean less often Muted TVs, less bathroom breaks, less channel-surfing during the breaks, and yes, less unrelated conversations during the ads.
.
Besides all of this, though, is the fact that networks are already digging deep into product placement, and pop-up ads during the programs. Again, they want to heap ads on top of ads, on top of ads, profiting in the short-term. If they're going to do that anyway, then they shouldn't have ANY commercial breaks. It's just a matter of time until the ads are the show, and the actual program is the 1/3rd of the airtime...
And, of course, there's nothing that gives them the right to make a profit. They're leasing the public's airwaves for the right to try to make a profit. There's absolutely, positively no reason we should be outlawing something that MAY, POTENTIALLY, cut down on that profit. That's beyond ridiculous. If they can't make a profit, fine. Give the airwaves back, and let some other company have a try. That's just simple competition in a changing marketplace for you. Maybe ad-supported TV just simply ISN'T the future. Maybe OnDemand, Netflix, and "Premium" ala-cart paid channels are.
Thank you for proving that HTML has no copy protection, and therefore does not fall under the DMCA...
We are not, nor have we ever been, a democracy. We are a Republic, where you democratically elect your representatives, and they make the laws.
That has both good and bad aspects to it.
It means that both good and bad laws can be passed when the majority does not support them. It also means you almost always have much smarter people than average making the decisions. On the downside, corruption of every kind is a serious issue. Considering the history of the U.S., I'd say it generally works out for the better, and the negatives get worked out in future congresses, or in the courts, if you're willing to wait a good period time.
And remember:
Absolutely, positively untrue, and I can't imagine where you cooked this idea up from.
Pretty much every program on the planet can print to Postscript, (that's certainly not an image-only format) and it's just a short jump from there to converting it into a PDF.
Bend it and twist it, but there's no proof that Adobe was even in a meeting with Microsoft about the subject...
It's ALL speculation, so discounting speculation other than your own is moronic.
Microsoft doesn't make a PDF reader... yet! YET!!!.
They don't make a PDF writer yet either.
Certainly, securing the rights to add propritary tags to written PDFs (preferably first under some innocent-looking senario) would be the first step in doing either.
Oh, I see. So siamese twins can "excise" each other. Just wondering which one gets priority to "excise" the other one. Is it the biggest of the two, or perhaps the one on the right???
The baby is just as dependant on it's parents the first few years after it is born, so you need something more to back-up the claim that this is somehow a radically different situation.
I'm the one trying to bring some logic to this discussion, not shouting baseless assertions and insults as you are. Who's the ignorant fool here?
You can't test evolution over millions of years. You can, however, test most fascets of it over much shorter spans of time, and potentially disprove it based upon that evidence.
If the baby is under 5 years old, the mother gets to "excise" it if she wishes.
Because she expressed that was what she wanted.
Here's a better question. Why should someone else's money and wishes be reason to usurp your own wishes?
She did care, and expressed her feelings to her husband, who carried them out, refused 10 million dollars, and stood up to the governments of Florida and the U.S. senate in the process.
That's because you're imposing your own beliefs and wishes on someone else, who did not share them. You believe in life, no matter what, over the rule of law, and the wishes of the individual and spouse. I should also point out that your are in a very, very small minority (perhaps 20% at best).
I think you can sum this up nicely by saying that Democrats think the people should be protected from corporations (consumer protection laws, environmental laws, etc), and Republicans think corporations should be protected from the people (tort reform*, reducing company taxes, subsudies, etc).
Note: "Tort Reform" is the political code-word for preventing individuals from being able to sue companies for blatantly violating contracts, selling defective products, etc.
Wasn't the movie, "Burning Kiosk" a Russian disaster flick?
Sounds good! The government can install video cameras in your home, as long as you're able to get a copy of it, and challenge the accuracy of it...
Right... don't ever do anything constructive...
Instead, you should complain as much as possible that NOBODY is doing anything constructive.
I have a question... Why would the Washington Post have a vast bank of genetic material, and why would they write a story to discuss how much it has gathered over the years.
Yeah, that's probably what happened. You've not jumping to an incredibly wild conclusion or anything...
GAH! Obviously that first one ("Tivo") was supposed to be "Netflix".