It's a great inconsistency and hypocrisy (not that that's surprising) that we crack down so hard on "drunk driving" yet allow cell phone use while driving.
Drivers showing a detectable amount of BAC are guilty regardless of their ability to drive or coordination relative to other drivers who may be sober.
Studies show that cell phones impair ability at least as much as mild drunkenness
Cell phone use isn't otherwise restricted among under-21 year olds.
Basically, all arguments against drunk driving apply equally to cell phone use while driving, except "alcohol use is optional (unlike cell phone use~) and is inherently evil and thus garners no sympathy".
That's the thing about it...the editing. You can edit on the fly right in the player.
I used to trip people out in college when I would borrow their iPods and record songs right off of it with a mini-mini cable. "Wait, you can do that?". Yes, and you can record the radio and the preview booths at Barnes and Noble too, and vinyl, and live shows, in splendid quality.
In a way, minidisc was the best of both CD and cassette, and the worst of Sony. Now physical media are losing relevance and even CD is getting long in the tooth.
It's a legitimate worry. People keep assuring gamers that the two control systems will exist side-by side. They have a right to be skeptical.
Once upon a time, all movies were silent, and then someone invented the talkie. Great, now we can have silent movies AND talking movies! No, the reality is we only have talking movies. Eventually nobody makes silent movies anymore.
Same thing with black and white. Someone invents color film, and people thing WOW, great more options! Now we will have black and white and color movies! But the reality is we only have color movies after all. If you want to see a black and white movie you have to watch on old one or an independently produced one. Nobody makes them because nobody thinks they will sell, and only weird hardcore artsy people would value such an obsolete aesthetic on purpose.
Same thing with 2D sprite-based games. 3D comes along, and people at first thing Great! This 3D stuff is neat, now we can have 3D and 2D games. And good thing, because entire genres of games and styles of art are built around 2D graphics. There's no way people will just stop making 2D games. But the reality is that they do. After a while we only have 3D games after all, and 2D games are not taken seriously anymore.
I think that gamers are entirely justified in worrying about losing button-based gameplay when they see the hoards of casual gamers and advertising hype around motion-based control. In technology as soon as something is viewed as old-fashioned the perception is that it won't sell, whether it's black-and-white film or 2D graphics or button-based gameplay.
I wonder if I'm the only one in the world that still uses Minidiscs. The way Sony handled the minidisc format is unsurprisingly idiotic, but the technology itself is very cool (Faraday effect/magneto-optical). They are also very durable, last a long time on batteries and have removable media which to some people is a feature rather than a bug. I don't use portable players much but when I do I still use my MZ-RH1 Hi-Md. But then again, I never, ever use the horrible SonicStage software that is necessary to access most of the best features of the device. I only use it to record vinyl and play it back, no computer involved. I also used to use it for recording live shows and other audio. The sound quality of the MZ-RH1's internal ADC-DAC is simply amazing...I would record a studio album with this device, and have no problem with sound quality. It's amazing, and depressing, because Sony is so stupid.
Where do you live? Film SLRs are basically given away in the DFW area. I bought a Pentax ME for 15 dollars with a lens. Olympus OM2n with two lenses for 100, with a Canon A1 thrown in for free. Nikon F4s for 220. As someone who shoots film exclusively, I LOVE what the digital revolution has done to film equipment prices.
Actually, in minature formats like 35mm, scanning a print can give better file quality than scanning the negative, which is just physically too small for consumer-level scanners to scan sharply and without grain aliasing generally. But even a cheapo flatbed will spit out a decent file from a print, however.
I doubt you could fit an IMAX feature onto a 1Tb hard drive. People argue over whether 2k is enough resolution for 35mm (I think it's close), and the only digital projectors out there are 2k, maybe extremely expensive 4k that aren't worth it because they have the resolution on paper but not a flawless implementation...like the 10mp digicam syndrome all over again. Remember, an IMAX frame is EIGHT TIMES bigger than a 35mm frame, and it's projected onto a bigger screen that is closer. I don't even know if the technology exists to duplicate IMAX digitally.
I don't think you could fit an iMax movie onto a 1Tb hard drive. A 70mm movie frame, scanned at any reasonable DPI (for projection onto a giant wall, remember) is going to be much more than HD resolution. People argue whether 2k is sufficient to record 35mm at full quality (I think it's close, but not quite enough). Remember that an iMax frame is EIGHT TIMES as big as a 35mm frame. Supposing you scan and store it, are there even projectors?
Actually I'm not sure if the technology even exists to project footage to the resolution of iMax. Digital formats are still relatively young; I think people forget how amazing things like film are, just because they are old technology.
When I was a kid, we used to have to go to an actual bowling alley to get drunk and bowl with school friends. You should try it sometime, it has a neat sense of nostalgia, almost as if you are actually hurtling a real ball at real bowling pins.
Does the Wii allow you to virtually drink, too?
Get off my lawn.
Their light may be fine enough for you perhaps. Maybe you have low standards, or you just don't care about light quality, or maybe you can't tell the difference. I think CFLs' output spectrum is completely unsuitable for anything and won't have them in my house. It's an insult for me to hang paintings and photographs on my wall and light them with a shitty peaky CFL output spectrum. It's completely obviously inferior. Unfortunately, LEDs aren't much better.
If only there was a lighting technology that could emit a continuous spectrum, maybe even approximating an ideal black body like the sun...
When I was getting my CCW permit, which requires fingerprinting, there was an old man there. The police fingerprinters were failing to get fingerprints from him, I assumed because of his old wrinkled skin. Since he legally cannot get a CCW permit without fingerprints on file, he was basically being discriminated against on the basis that the fancy fingerprinting machine that the police station bought happened to not do the correct song and dance when he put his fingers on it.
It's similar to the situation with breathalyzers where if the machine beeps or not can be the difference between you going to jail or driving home. Our judges have been replaced by robotic imposters, and I imagine it will get worse in the future.
I think it's funny that while Americans (at least) call comic books from Japan "manga" (because just calling them comics isn't esoteric enough), the Japanese also use the term "komikku" to refer to certain kinds of the same thing.
And people look back at the Salem witch trials, and wonder how that ever could have happened, and wonder why nobody stood up to stop it, and are thankful that we've come so far since those terrible times, all while completely failing to see the irony.
You are missing the point. The point isn't that mp3s aren't CD-quality, it's that they aren't the original object, and consumers do not value this distinction, and it is consumers who create the demand in the marketplace (although industry bigwigs would like to think they do). Only in the past recent decades have people had the opportunity to accept tangible objects not as objects of intrinsic worth but as simple containers of content...the object itself is worthless; a CD is a plastic trinket. I can buy hundreds of identical ones at the store for pocket money. People don't care about the CD, because its merely a container for content that can be losslessly placed onto any number of other containers. Compare this with a vinyl record or a polaroid photograph. Until we invent a matter cloner, it is in fact not possible to copy either. The distinction is actually seen as humorous and pedantic because people instantly accept that "a dvd" does not mean a physical object but it is synonymous with "the content encoded by the the object". Consumers have shown that they do not value the container. A movie is accepted in its abstracted digital state, no longer a long strip of cellulose acetate and silver, or any other tangible object, even though people confusedly call them "films". This generation accepts that photographs aren't something that you can hang on your wall and accidentally spill your coffee onto, but something that you can put magically into you computer and put on the internet--and they like this...they scan their photographs and throw them away, happy to be rid of the shoeboxes under their bed. They rip their CD collections and sell the CDs, because the object had no worth to them in the first place. If a polaroid is burned, it can never be recovered in this universe, thus it is valuable as an artifact. If you accept a digital image of the polaroid as equivalent (and it seems, however unsophisticated in my opinion, that people really do), then the polaroid all of a sudden has no worth...in the real sense of real property. You have gone from a supply of 1 to a supply of arbitrary size (again, provided you accept the digital image as equivalent to the object, which I cannot do, and many still call BS on). The technologies that enabled this shift in perceptions and resulting behavior is what these multimedia types are really reacting against. They want to be able to sell something, but what? It's not as simple as it used to be. I would fully expect in the future for CD sales to drop below vinyl sales. Nobody will want a CD except people who want a physical object, and a CD is neither necessary or desirable as a physical object; it was an artifact from a period between the rise of digital media and the explosion of cheap storage space and computing power. Companies such as Sony are trying to make money in this changing, some would say, collapsing market. I don't know what they should do, that's their business, but I do know that they are being incredibly dumb and incapable of even defining the problems that they face in the first place, much less of solving their dilemma, and I have no sympathy. Their whole industry may disappear, just as the buggy whip industry did; that's human progress.
A fallacious argument.
The Sistine Chapel ceiling is a tangible, unique work of art. As is the the Mona Lisa. It is not necessary to watermark a painting because it cannot be duplicated. Any duplicate is by necessity a copy, and not in the digital sense.
A live symphony performance is a unique performance that exists in time and space, and cannot be duplicated save with a time machine. You can record it, sure, but you can also photograph the Mona Lisa. What you end up with is not the original piece in either case. There is usually an element of tangibility to classic forms of art. Now, our art is increasingly "virtual art".
Digital media can be copied losslessly and infinitely and there is no practical distinction to be made between an original and a copy. I'm not trying to stick up for Sony, but it is a fact that modern artists and industries really are dealing with a new phenomenon, and comparisons to the past are usually misapplied. What Sony is longing for is a way to reclaim the past, when buying a record meant you had to go down to the record store and buy a vinyl disc with a long scratch into it, a disc that wore out and could be broken, and could be easily charged for.
It's widely known that Fujifilm makes domestic film emulsions with a color balance that flatters Japanese complexion and uses a different formulation for film shipped overseas. I don't really see this as racist or a problem, though.
And yes, there are many people who "still" conduct film photography and don't plan to stop any time soon. Digital imaging cannot, and hasn't replaced film entirely.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a great inconsistency and hypocrisy (not that that's surprising) that we crack down so hard on "drunk driving" yet allow cell phone use while driving.
Drivers showing a detectable amount of BAC are guilty regardless of their ability to drive or coordination relative to other drivers who may be sober.
Studies show that cell phones impair ability at least as much as mild drunkenness
Cell phone use isn't otherwise restricted among under-21 year olds.
Basically, all arguments against drunk driving apply equally to cell phone use while driving, except "alcohol use is optional (unlike cell phone use~) and is inherently evil and thus garners no sympathy".
That's the thing about it...the editing. You can edit on the fly right in the player.
I used to trip people out in college when I would borrow their iPods and record songs right off of it with a mini-mini cable. "Wait, you can do that?". Yes, and you can record the radio and the preview booths at Barnes and Noble too, and vinyl, and live shows, in splendid quality.
In a way, minidisc was the best of both CD and cassette, and the worst of Sony. Now physical media are losing relevance and even CD is getting long in the tooth.
It's a legitimate worry. People keep assuring gamers that the two control systems will exist side-by side. They have a right to be skeptical.
Once upon a time, all movies were silent, and then someone invented the talkie. Great, now we can have silent movies AND talking movies! No, the reality is we only have talking movies. Eventually nobody makes silent movies anymore.
Same thing with black and white. Someone invents color film, and people thing WOW, great more options! Now we will have black and white and color movies! But the reality is we only have color movies after all. If you want to see a black and white movie you have to watch on old one or an independently produced one. Nobody makes them because nobody thinks they will sell, and only weird hardcore artsy people would value such an obsolete aesthetic on purpose.
Same thing with 2D sprite-based games. 3D comes along, and people at first thing Great! This 3D stuff is neat, now we can have 3D and 2D games. And good thing, because entire genres of games and styles of art are built around 2D graphics. There's no way people will just stop making 2D games. But the reality is that they do. After a while we only have 3D games after all, and 2D games are not taken seriously anymore.
I think that gamers are entirely justified in worrying about losing button-based gameplay when they see the hoards of casual gamers and advertising hype around motion-based control. In technology as soon as something is viewed as old-fashioned the perception is that it won't sell, whether it's black-and-white film or 2D graphics or button-based gameplay.
I wonder if I'm the only one in the world that still uses Minidiscs. The way Sony handled the minidisc format is unsurprisingly idiotic, but the technology itself is very cool (Faraday effect/magneto-optical). They are also very durable, last a long time on batteries and have removable media which to some people is a feature rather than a bug. I don't use portable players much but when I do I still use my MZ-RH1 Hi-Md. But then again, I never, ever use the horrible SonicStage software that is necessary to access most of the best features of the device. I only use it to record vinyl and play it back, no computer involved. I also used to use it for recording live shows and other audio. The sound quality of the MZ-RH1's internal ADC-DAC is simply amazing...I would record a studio album with this device, and have no problem with sound quality. It's amazing, and depressing, because Sony is so stupid.
One does not simply Jihad into Mordor.
I call them digital prints. ?
I prefer "virtual photography". Photography is the illusion of reality. Digital Imaging is the illusion of photography.
Where do you live? Film SLRs are basically given away in the DFW area. I bought a Pentax ME for 15 dollars with a lens. Olympus OM2n with two lenses for 100, with a Canon A1 thrown in for free. Nikon F4s for 220. As someone who shoots film exclusively, I LOVE what the digital revolution has done to film equipment prices.
Actually, in minature formats like 35mm, scanning a print can give better file quality than scanning the negative, which is just physically too small for consumer-level scanners to scan sharply and without grain aliasing generally. But even a cheapo flatbed will spit out a decent file from a print, however.
Didn't they do something like this in Superman 3?
I already pay a monthly fee for such a service. It's called DSL.
I doubt you could fit an IMAX feature onto a 1Tb hard drive. People argue over whether 2k is enough resolution for 35mm (I think it's close), and the only digital projectors out there are 2k, maybe extremely expensive 4k that aren't worth it because they have the resolution on paper but not a flawless implementation...like the 10mp digicam syndrome all over again. Remember, an IMAX frame is EIGHT TIMES bigger than a 35mm frame, and it's projected onto a bigger screen that is closer. I don't even know if the technology exists to duplicate IMAX digitally.
Actually I'm not sure if the technology even exists to project footage to the resolution of iMax. Digital formats are still relatively young; I think people forget how amazing things like film are, just because they are old technology.
Shut the fuck up Donnie.
When I was a kid, we used to have to go to an actual bowling alley to get drunk and bowl with school friends. You should try it sometime, it has a neat sense of nostalgia, almost as if you are actually hurtling a real ball at real bowling pins. Does the Wii allow you to virtually drink, too? Get off my lawn.
If only there was a lighting technology that could emit a continuous spectrum, maybe even approximating an ideal black body like the sun...
I still like nixie tube displays.
Now imagine a beowulf cluster of those.
It's similar to the situation with breathalyzers where if the machine beeps or not can be the difference between you going to jail or driving home. Our judges have been replaced by robotic imposters, and I imagine it will get worse in the future.
I think it's funny that while Americans (at least) call comic books from Japan "manga" (because just calling them comics isn't esoteric enough), the Japanese also use the term "komikku" to refer to certain kinds of the same thing.
And people look back at the Salem witch trials, and wonder how that ever could have happened, and wonder why nobody stood up to stop it, and are thankful that we've come so far since those terrible times, all while completely failing to see the irony.
I think I might need to use special tags
yes, that's it.
You are missing the point. The point isn't that mp3s aren't CD-quality, it's that they aren't the original object, and consumers do not value this distinction, and it is consumers who create the demand in the marketplace (although industry bigwigs would like to think they do). Only in the past recent decades have people had the opportunity to accept tangible objects not as objects of intrinsic worth but as simple containers of content...the object itself is worthless; a CD is a plastic trinket. I can buy hundreds of identical ones at the store for pocket money. People don't care about the CD, because its merely a container for content that can be losslessly placed onto any number of other containers. Compare this with a vinyl record or a polaroid photograph. Until we invent a matter cloner, it is in fact not possible to copy either. The distinction is actually seen as humorous and pedantic because people instantly accept that "a dvd" does not mean a physical object but it is synonymous with "the content encoded by the the object". Consumers have shown that they do not value the container. A movie is accepted in its abstracted digital state, no longer a long strip of cellulose acetate and silver, or any other tangible object, even though people confusedly call them "films". This generation accepts that photographs aren't something that you can hang on your wall and accidentally spill your coffee onto, but something that you can put magically into you computer and put on the internet--and they like this...they scan their photographs and throw them away, happy to be rid of the shoeboxes under their bed. They rip their CD collections and sell the CDs, because the object had no worth to them in the first place. If a polaroid is burned, it can never be recovered in this universe, thus it is valuable as an artifact. If you accept a digital image of the polaroid as equivalent (and it seems, however unsophisticated in my opinion, that people really do), then the polaroid all of a sudden has no worth...in the real sense of real property. You have gone from a supply of 1 to a supply of arbitrary size (again, provided you accept the digital image as equivalent to the object, which I cannot do, and many still call BS on). The technologies that enabled this shift in perceptions and resulting behavior is what these multimedia types are really reacting against. They want to be able to sell something, but what? It's not as simple as it used to be. I would fully expect in the future for CD sales to drop below vinyl sales. Nobody will want a CD except people who want a physical object, and a CD is neither necessary or desirable as a physical object; it was an artifact from a period between the rise of digital media and the explosion of cheap storage space and computing power. Companies such as Sony are trying to make money in this changing, some would say, collapsing market. I don't know what they should do, that's their business, but I do know that they are being incredibly dumb and incapable of even defining the problems that they face in the first place, much less of solving their dilemma, and I have no sympathy. Their whole industry may disappear, just as the buggy whip industry did; that's human progress.
A fallacious argument. The Sistine Chapel ceiling is a tangible, unique work of art. As is the the Mona Lisa. It is not necessary to watermark a painting because it cannot be duplicated. Any duplicate is by necessity a copy, and not in the digital sense. A live symphony performance is a unique performance that exists in time and space, and cannot be duplicated save with a time machine. You can record it, sure, but you can also photograph the Mona Lisa. What you end up with is not the original piece in either case. There is usually an element of tangibility to classic forms of art. Now, our art is increasingly "virtual art". Digital media can be copied losslessly and infinitely and there is no practical distinction to be made between an original and a copy. I'm not trying to stick up for Sony, but it is a fact that modern artists and industries really are dealing with a new phenomenon, and comparisons to the past are usually misapplied. What Sony is longing for is a way to reclaim the past, when buying a record meant you had to go down to the record store and buy a vinyl disc with a long scratch into it, a disc that wore out and could be broken, and could be easily charged for.
It's widely known that Fujifilm makes domestic film emulsions with a color balance that flatters Japanese complexion and uses a different formulation for film shipped overseas. I don't really see this as racist or a problem, though. And yes, there are many people who "still" conduct film photography and don't plan to stop any time soon. Digital imaging cannot, and hasn't replaced film entirely.