Re:cable and sat don't have the bandwidth for it
on
The Trouble With 4K TV
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Its the term used at the production side, and is pretty much the standard for pro video at the high end. And its notorious for being really hard and expensive to work with because its simply taxing for the cameras to output and even more taxing to work through post-production with. Something like a RED or whatever camera will sell themselves on "4K" but generally unless filming for cinema its hardly needed.
With one exception however, when dealing with chromakeying and the like the higher resolution provides more information to key out backgrounds without the telltale green halos around the characters, so even on TV work, 4K cameras are idea for special effects stuff, just to give the post-production work more to work with.
Which is, of course, why those newfangled DSLR cameras might look seriously fantastic for normal footage, but are simply the wrong choice for special effects stuff because whilst the effect of compressing it all down might be acceptable for most video, it removes too much detail for chromakeying without a lot of (expensive) extra work in post production. With that said, for DIY amateur stuff, its not time thats the problem but gear and so people are able to spend more time getting keying right and working with looser tolerances.
Cars/factories/whatever wont do a damn thing to the places hitting mid/high 40c temps in australia.
These are in places where your next door neighbor is 200kms away, and a drive to the nearest store requires a day, emergency CB radio and 3 days backup water supply just in case the car breaks down over the potholed dirt roads. A
This is actually why I love working with Python code. The design of the language means that it actually requires talent to write unreadable code and as long as someone uses sensible symbols (variable/class/function names) and avoids getting too carried away with things like Lambdas and the like, you can almost always read an experts code and a beginners code with about the same difficulty level. Good python can by explained to your boss, the language is designed for that shit, and if respected in that spirit its a fantastic, and honestly if the server takes a bit of a performance hit, the costs are more than offset by significantly reduced labor costs.
I've been coding nearly 20 years, and I've come to decide I value readability over cleverness. If I have to keep a copy of bruce fowlers pattern book beside me, or a pen and paper to decode some hideous logical nest of conditional craziness , I can only conclude the coder needs to simplify his shit because he's wasting my old-ass time working it out.
Now, combining readable AND concise, thats where the real skill is.
I cant stand C code written by engineers. I had one guy I worked with who was an incredibly smart hacker, working previously for Sun doing CPU design. But he wrote fecking *awful* code that looks like it wanted to be PLC ladder code or something. Giant switch statements , gotos everywhere, almost no use of functions (It was almost all in the main(){} section) , and what functions he did use, he'd pass variables around with static defines, and so on.
And lots of assembly, which I wouldn't criticize if it wasn't for the fact it was usually in totally non time critical sections and for which a few lines of C could easily replace 2 pages of contorted ASM.
The guy just had no feel for abstraction at all, which I guess makes sense if your designing a logic bus for a CPU where you *need* to think in terms of raw implementation, but makes for awful and unreadable code.
Needless to say none of the rest of us on the team could work with his code, but what where we to do? He was clearly a very knowledgable grey beard, and management loved the guy simply because they could brag about a senior coder who "designed chips for Sun" , but he also believed his own advertising copy and thus refused to listen to criticism from us lowly CS grads who just wanted him to write code that we could follow.
Oh and he couldn't read any of our code either. "Too abstract" he'd complain. Fool.
You just made his argument. The people, invested with their rights, delegated power to tax to the state. Not the right.
Are you trying to tell me that the founding fathers where total schizophrenics who felt it necessary to give states the power to tax but then decided they couldnt do it anyway (But forgot to add in a bit that said they DIDNT have the right to).
Why the hell would they do that?
Fortunately no sane judge would conclude such mad intent from the founding fathers. The judiciary are sane men and avoid the use of LSD before entering the court room.
Actually in a twist of irony it does have rights. It has bigger guns than you, that means it gets to invent whatever damn rights it wants. Rights don't come from space or exist as some sort of independent substance, they are purely a human invention, and whoever puts the most force into that invention gets to control the invention that dominates our lives.
I'm not a supporter at all of unrestricted gun ownership, but I'll grant the lobby this much. Whether its a good thing or bad thing, depends on how much you trust the government vs mad nuts who'd threaten a radio station for exercising its first ammendment. Personally? I trust neither.
Actually google penalizes news articles and puts them in a separate index. If she's a good writer thats *why* she's not appearing in the front page of the general search index.
I saw an interview with a fairly serious economist who said , when asked about the budget deficit , "Deficit is something that politicians worry about, not economists. The problem only really occurs when politicians make bad decisions based on a countrys deficit like what we are seeing in europe". His point is, that the european boondoggle is a problem caused by politicians freaking out about debt, rather than forces in the economy which are largely unaffected by deficit. The important thing is that money flows in an economy simulating trade and productive activity. You do not achieve this by austerity, which is why cutting government budgets have pretty much never actually helped an ailing economy.
Theres a reason why economists largely treat the austrian school of "surplus at all costs" as cranky.
Apple haven't really put a lot of effort into locking out jailbreaks. Just a token effort really to appease the devs and itunes lawyers worried about piracy. UIltimately apples money isnt really derived from software but hardware.
Microsoft on the other hand are all about software. They are much more in need of a lockout to ban competition from their hardware.
Compare the two approaches: Apple;- No competing hardware (But we dont really care if you install windows on your mac, we'll just think your daft). Microsoft;- No competing software (We dont care if you install us on a competing tablet, surface is just a marketing tool)
"Innocence of muslims" has to be one of the worst pieces of film I've ever watched. It was quite clearly created to insult and enrage muslims.
However I would suggest to the Pakistani authorities that if they REALLY want to stop their sensitive southerners from getting enraged at the west, perhaps they need to have a word to their american friends about those drone bombers. I figure if I was in a targetted village it would be the drones, not some silly infantile troll video, that would be my major beef.
He's got sway. I actually love RMS's philosophy and the staunchness with which he defends it. But sometimes yeah he's a bit old fashioned like that, and yes he has some sway, because GNU is a specific project, not just a licence.
Personally I can't stand C++ either, but my decisions affect me alone, not a huge volenteer org I'm heading up.
The basic concept is essential vs non essential patents. Essential patents are supposed to be licenced out so as not to be used as a monopolization tool, where as stuff that isnt essential to compete , not so much.
Considering "rounded corners" wasnt even a patent, and its entirely possible to put out a phone with other shaped corners, then no this is not a legitimate comparison at all.
Automation is shifting repetitive, uncreative, brutish work to repetitive, uncreative, brutish machines, thus freeing humans to pursue nobler interests.
Yeah thats what they said in the 1800s. We've had a hundred years of trying it. Its not working. Instead technology has been pushing wealth into ever more concentrated hands because it means less and less people need to be paid to produce stuff.
But heres the question. Who in society is not a worker, except for the rich?
And how does someone become rich, except by working?
So if if less people are now able to become rich, and the rest are becoming jobless and redundant, how exactly is this going to benefit the wider society?
Capitalism and automation are not a compatible combination with the welfare of the wider society.
But is the wider society ready for an alternative to capitalism?
The WHO needs to get their head out of their ass. Everyone knows an Irishman can out-drink a Korean any day of the week.
I'm irish AND australian, and I can tell you categorically we have NOTHING on the koreans. Those crazy bastards will drink anyone under the table. Hell they'll even give the russians a run for their money when it comes to smashing down soju/vodka (soju is just a sweetened rice vodka)
We like to tell ourselves that, but whilst I dont think the irish are bigger drinkers, the beer on tap their tends to be *better* than the slop that passes as beer in some aussie pubs.
That said, our booze tends to be a bit stronger on average. So take that as you will.
A friend of mine, a fairly straight laced english teacher, spent a year teaching english to korean school kids as a bit of a working holiday, and came back looking like he needed a liver transplant. He reckoned they had staff meetings every day before class and all the teachers got hammered on sojo to deal with the fact that the kids where total riotous pratts.
But I gotta love the koreans. the local korean resturants get pissier than the local pub. Your pretty much expected to order a few bottles of soju and that miilky rice wine stuff, and everyone there gets completely frigging blasted off their heads. And best of all, because they are resturants its completely off the radar of the local drinking party-pooper cops so the places devolve into total parties.
Oddly I've never seen a punch up in a korean soju resturant. I guess it means they can handle their booze.
In theory it should be possible to pack this all with the imports onto a single line. But for the life of me I cant get it to work and I'm not entirely sure why.
Almost all home computer basics, with the exception of the Amstrad and sinclair units (The amstrad supported it) where based on microsoft basic being that it was cheap to licence and they'd port the damn thing for you. All of them, from memory, supported fitting multiple statements onto a single line.
Here is why the categorically a line is NOT a statement. A statement is a unit of execution, and a line is a unit of flow control. That is the two major flow control commands could only point to line numbers not specific statements, and you could pile on as many statements into that line as was sensible. Of course flow went from line to line linearly so it was usually more sensible to do it that way.
This is not unintentional as it was how contemporous systems worked, notably fortran which shares a lot in common with basic (if I remember right fortran let you omit line numbers for parts of the code further abstracting even further the line/statement difference) , and the later LOGO language which quite specifically relied on a very marked difference between lines and statements to organize flow control.
Yes C could be more or less condensed to 1 line.ÂVery ugly line.
But its not quite equivilent because the line number tags in earlier versions of basic are still relevant here. You cant just pack the whole program on one line in basic unless you forgo the goto and gosub commands, which somewhat pulls the language out of the turing completeness pool I'd imagine.
Slashdot Mirror
Its the term used at the production side, and is pretty much the standard for pro video at the high end. And its notorious for being really hard and expensive to work with because its simply taxing for the cameras to output and even more taxing to work through post-production with. Something like a RED or whatever camera will sell themselves on "4K" but generally unless filming for cinema its hardly needed.
With one exception however, when dealing with chromakeying and the like the higher resolution provides more information to key out backgrounds without the telltale green halos around the characters, so even on TV work, 4K cameras are idea for special effects stuff, just to give the post-production work more to work with.
Which is, of course, why those newfangled DSLR cameras might look seriously fantastic for normal footage, but are simply the wrong choice for special effects stuff because whilst the effect of compressing it all down might be acceptable for most video, it removes too much detail for chromakeying without a lot of (expensive) extra work in post production. With that said, for DIY amateur stuff, its not time thats the problem but gear and so people are able to spend more time getting keying right and working with looser tolerances.
Cars/factories/whatever wont do a damn thing to the places hitting mid/high 40c temps in australia.
These are in places where your next door neighbor is 200kms away, and a drive to the nearest store requires a day, emergency CB radio and 3 days backup water supply just in case the car breaks down over the potholed dirt roads. A
Ah russia, that land of prosperity....
This is actually why I love working with Python code. The design of the language means that it actually requires talent to write unreadable code and as long as someone uses sensible symbols (variable/class/function names) and avoids getting too carried away with things like Lambdas and the like, you can almost always read an experts code and a beginners code with about the same difficulty level. Good python can by explained to your boss, the language is designed for that shit, and if respected in that spirit its a fantastic, and honestly if the server takes a bit of a performance hit, the costs are more than offset by significantly reduced labor costs.
I've been coding nearly 20 years, and I've come to decide I value readability over cleverness. If I have to keep a copy of bruce fowlers pattern book beside me, or a pen and paper to decode some hideous logical nest of conditional craziness , I can only conclude the coder needs to simplify his shit because he's wasting my old-ass time working it out.
Now, combining readable AND concise, thats where the real skill is.
I cant stand C code written by engineers. I had one guy I worked with who was an incredibly smart hacker, working previously for Sun doing CPU design. But he wrote fecking *awful* code that looks like it wanted to be PLC ladder code or something. Giant switch statements , gotos everywhere, almost no use of functions (It was almost all in the main(){} section) , and what functions he did use, he'd pass variables around with static defines, and so on.
And lots of assembly, which I wouldn't criticize if it wasn't for the fact it was usually in totally non time critical sections and for which a few lines of C could easily replace 2 pages of contorted ASM.
The guy just had no feel for abstraction at all, which I guess makes sense if your designing a logic bus for a CPU where you *need* to think in terms of raw implementation, but makes for awful and unreadable code.
Needless to say none of the rest of us on the team could work with his code, but what where we to do? He was clearly a very knowledgable grey beard, and management loved the guy simply because they could brag about a senior coder who "designed chips for Sun" , but he also believed his own advertising copy and thus refused to listen to criticism from us lowly CS grads who just wanted him to write code that we could follow.
Oh and he couldn't read any of our code either. "Too abstract" he'd complain. Fool.
You just made his argument. The people, invested with their rights, delegated power to tax to the state. Not the right.
Are you trying to tell me that the founding fathers where total schizophrenics who felt it necessary to give states the power to tax but then decided they couldnt do it anyway (But forgot to add in a bit that said they DIDNT have the right to).
Why the hell would they do that?
Fortunately no sane judge would conclude such mad intent from the founding fathers. The judiciary are sane men and avoid the use of LSD before entering the court room.
That says "Power" which is not the same as a right.
Yeah well good luck explaining that shit to a judge lol
Actually in a twist of irony it does have rights. It has bigger guns than you, that means it gets to invent whatever damn rights it wants. Rights don't come from space or exist as some sort of independent substance, they are purely a human invention, and whoever puts the most force into that invention gets to control the invention that dominates our lives.
I'm not a supporter at all of unrestricted gun ownership, but I'll grant the lobby this much. Whether its a good thing or bad thing, depends on how much you trust the government vs mad nuts who'd threaten a radio station for exercising its first ammendment. Personally? I trust neither.
Actually google penalizes news articles and puts them in a separate index. If she's a good writer thats *why* she's not appearing in the front page of the general search index.
I saw an interview with a fairly serious economist who said , when asked about the budget deficit , "Deficit is something that politicians worry about, not economists. The problem only really occurs when politicians make bad decisions based on a countrys deficit like what we are seeing in europe". His point is, that the european boondoggle is a problem caused by politicians freaking out about debt, rather than forces in the economy which are largely unaffected by deficit. The important thing is that money flows in an economy simulating trade and productive activity. You do not achieve this by austerity, which is why cutting government budgets have pretty much never actually helped an ailing economy.
Theres a reason why economists largely treat the austrian school of "surplus at all costs" as cranky.
Apple haven't really put a lot of effort into locking out jailbreaks. Just a token effort really to appease the devs and itunes lawyers worried about piracy. UIltimately apples money isnt really derived from software but hardware.
Microsoft on the other hand are all about software. They are much more in need of a lockout to ban competition from their hardware.
Compare the two approaches: Apple;- No competing hardware (But we dont really care if you install windows on your mac, we'll just think your daft). Microsoft;- No competing software (We dont care if you install us on a competing tablet, surface is just a marketing tool)
"Innocence of muslims" has to be one of the worst pieces of film I've ever watched. It was quite clearly created to insult and enrage muslims.
However I would suggest to the Pakistani authorities that if they REALLY want to stop their sensitive southerners from getting enraged at the west, perhaps they need to have a word to their american friends about those drone bombers. I figure if I was in a targetted village it would be the drones, not some silly infantile troll video, that would be my major beef.
Multiple inheritance is actually problematic in a lot of cases, especially for libraries.
Of course , its like singletons or whatever. Shouldn't do it, but sometimes deadline-practicality wins and its the best tool for the job.
He's got sway. I actually love RMS's philosophy and the staunchness with which he defends it. But sometimes yeah he's a bit old fashioned like that, and yes he has some sway, because GNU is a specific project, not just a licence.
Personally I can't stand C++ either, but my decisions affect me alone, not a huge volenteer org I'm heading up.
The basic concept is essential vs non essential patents. Essential patents are supposed to be licenced out so as not to be used as a monopolization tool, where as stuff that isnt essential to compete , not so much.
Considering "rounded corners" wasnt even a patent, and its entirely possible to put out a phone with other shaped corners, then no this is not a legitimate comparison at all.
Automation is shifting repetitive, uncreative, brutish work to repetitive, uncreative, brutish machines, thus freeing humans to pursue nobler interests.
Yeah thats what they said in the 1800s. We've had a hundred years of trying it. Its not working. Instead technology has been pushing wealth into ever more concentrated hands because it means less and less people need to be paid to produce stuff.
But heres the question. Who in society is not a worker, except for the rich?
And how does someone become rich, except by working?
So if if less people are now able to become rich, and the rest are becoming jobless and redundant, how exactly is this going to benefit the wider society?
Capitalism and automation are not a compatible combination with the welfare of the wider society.
But is the wider society ready for an alternative to capitalism?
Skyrim on max settings at 60fps here bro.
I think your not paying attention!
The US treasury is not a privately held cartel lol.
Seriously, delete the rothman lizard people conspiracy videos from your HTPC dude.
Remember boys and girls, in bitcoin rainbow and unicorn land, deflation is good.
Like literally, the looneys recently celebrated the algorithm halving the new coin supply lol.
I mean sure a recession is just another word for deflation (it really is) , but lets not sweat the details.
The WHO needs to get their head out of their ass. Everyone knows an Irishman can out-drink a Korean any day of the week.
I'm irish AND australian, and I can tell you categorically we have NOTHING on the koreans. Those crazy bastards will drink anyone under the table. Hell they'll even give the russians a run for their money when it comes to smashing down soju/vodka (soju is just a sweetened rice vodka)
We like to tell ourselves that, but whilst I dont think the irish are bigger drinkers, the beer on tap their tends to be *better* than the slop that passes as beer in some aussie pubs.
That said, our booze tends to be a bit stronger on average. So take that as you will.
A friend of mine, a fairly straight laced english teacher, spent a year teaching english to korean school kids as a bit of a working holiday, and came back looking like he needed a liver transplant. He reckoned they had staff meetings every day before class and all the teachers got hammered on sojo to deal with the fact that the kids where total riotous pratts.
But I gotta love the koreans. the local korean resturants get pissier than the local pub. Your pretty much expected to order a few bottles of soju and that miilky rice wine stuff, and everyone there gets completely frigging blasted off their heads. And best of all, because they are resturants its completely off the radar of the local drinking party-pooper cops so the places devolve into total parties.
Oddly I've never seen a punch up in a korean soju resturant. I guess it means they can handle their booze.
If you add
from __future__ import print_function
You can do something like
while True: print (random.choice("\/"),end="")
which eliminates the excess space in print blah ,
In theory it should be possible to pack this all with the imports onto a single line. But for the life of me I cant get it to work and I'm not entirely sure why.
Almost all home computer basics, with the exception of the Amstrad and sinclair units (The amstrad supported it) where based on microsoft basic being that it was cheap to licence and they'd port the damn thing for you. All of them, from memory, supported fitting multiple statements onto a single line.
Here is why the categorically a line is NOT a statement. A statement is a unit of execution, and a line is a unit of flow control. That is the two major flow control commands could only point to line numbers not specific statements, and you could pile on as many statements into that line as was sensible. Of course flow went from line to line linearly so it was usually more sensible to do it that way.
This is not unintentional as it was how contemporous systems worked, notably fortran which shares a lot in common with basic (if I remember right fortran let you omit line numbers for parts of the code further abstracting even further the line/statement difference) , and the later LOGO language which quite specifically relied on a very marked difference between lines and statements to organize flow control.
Yes C could be more or less condensed to 1 line.ÂVery ugly line.
But its not quite equivilent because the line number tags in earlier versions of basic are still relevant here. You cant just pack the whole program on one line in basic unless you forgo the goto and gosub commands, which somewhat pulls the language out of the turing completeness pool I'd imagine.