...Vinyl is not immune against someone compressing... Expect such stupidity to happen shortly
Compression is a by-definition requirement of ALL media, from the microphones (too high a sound pressure level will cause distortion and eventually damage), to the master tape (which has a very broad, but not limitless range of loudness representations available to it) and ESPECIALLY for vinyl
You're confusing two different meanings of 'compression' - but not to worry, that always happens in articles on this topic.
They can sound better if you have a good turntable with a good cartridge, a good preamp and amp, and good speakers that are capable of resolving the differences between digital and analog audio.
Oh, and that's assuming the LP wasn't digitally mastered. If it was, then the point is moot - the vinyl can't capture anything that wasn't in the digital master.
Yes, but I didn't use the term to refer to teens having normal sexual relationships with each other. I was thinking of the molestor/harasser/sexual predator who targets teens - the general public would classify him (or her) as a pedophile, whereas the police and criminal psychologists would not.
Pardon me, but it's not a strawman. I was directly addressing your comment that it's "idiotic" to claim that a picture, in itself, is not dangerous. There can be any number of reasons for people to view photographs of crimes (including police investigation) which have nothing to do with creating a "demand" for such material. Yet you think the material itself should be illegal?
Look, there are plenty of people out there who get off on violence. Does Hollywood contribute to this problem with violent movies? Do people watching "Bumfight" videos belong in jail along with the batterers out there?
Alcohol and tobacco harm minors who get ahold of them illegally. Am I now "dangerous" for buying beer and cigarettes just because I contribute to a demand for them?
Assuming all "pedophiles" (which, in this society, would mean pretty much any male who has ever looked at a 15 year old and thought "wow that's hot") are simply out of control
Actually, no. Pedophilia means the primary or exclusive sexual attraction towards prepubescent children.
A 15 year old doesn't fit the category, especially not if it's a girl since they tend to enter puberty earlier than the boys.
That's his point - in this society, the concept of "pedophile" has been systematically confused with all sexual conduct with minors. I have seen plenty of guys called "pedos" online when they mentioned how attractive a young starlet is (e.g. Lindsey Lohan a few years ago, Mary Kate + Ashley, etc.)
To the average person, there's no difference. Fortunately psychiatrists know the difference, and (most) police do too. Being attracted to adolescents is perfectly natural; that's what puberty is for. But there's a big difference between simply being attracted to someone and sexually abusing them.
> That article is one big string of factual errors, from beginning to end. He can't even get the simple, well known, and easy to find facts correct. > Everyone in that thread is regurgitating second-hand information that they really don't understand. > I'd still look forward to reading some better sources for those facts...
Your silence has certainly convinced me that you know what you're talking about, while none of those other folks do.
> This isn't the simple case of buying a DVD player so you can watch DVD's. This is the case of "Buy our brand's DVD Player so you can listen to our brand of DVDs".
So basically it's no different than what Sony did with their MiniDisc format?
Everyone in that thread is regurgitating second-hand information that they really don't understand.
So, perhaps you'd care to point out the errors? It's better to educate people than just tell them they are wrong.
I'd still look forward to reading some better sources for those facts...
I'll keep looking, but from everything I've found so far, it's evident that CRT-based computer monitors can achieve HD resolutions, while CRT televisions cannot. Only the Sony SFP sets came close, and those are no longer available.
The Sony "Super Fine Pitch" tubes have about 1400 slits per scanline in their aperture grilles, which they claim is "65% more" than most tubes. That leaves most tubes with 900 or less resolvable triads per line.
Bear in mind that CRT computer displays typically have a dot pitch of 0.35mm or less, whereas television CRTs (including HD) need to be brighter, and have a dot pitch between 0.7mm and 1mm
Maybe it's more like "What cool thing can we make with this set of Tinkertoys?" (or Lego(TM) bricks, or Lincoln Logs, or Play-Doh, or breakfast cereals, or fruit bats...)
By definition, a small, cheap HDTV is going to be CRT-based. Nothing else comes close in price. And CRTs just happen to have the best resolution of anything.
"By definition"? What definition are you using for "small" and "cheap," because LCD computer monitors that do 1920 x 1200 can be found for $400 or less. LCD TVs are more expensive than monitors, but it shows that such resolution is quite possible at low cost. As for size, Sanyo developed a full 1080p capable LCD that's a mere 7.1" in size.
Moreover, most CRT-based HDTV units have an aperture grille that only has 800-900 dots per scanline. Sure, they will accept an HD signal and may even display an image at 1080i resolution, but it is not physically possible for them to resolve every pixel in the image.
There is also the little detail that high-def is meaningless on conventional sized screens at normal viewing distances. The human eye has only so much resolution, you know.
Sure, but if I see something in the picture that catches my interest, and I hit pause and move closer to the screen, I want to see more detail - not less, not the same amount.
And yes, you pr0n-addled plebes, there are some things worth examining up close even in non-adult movies!
Five years from now, if we're all living in caves eating roots, the dude who finds a way to make the roots taste better and give us better orgasms gets to be the next Steve Jobs. We the citizens of Nu Urth salute you, Holy Chief Root Dude, and your delicious curried Ball Blasters!
"Oog give pretty shiny things for iPod, but battery die after 18 months. Oog smash Jobs!"
Look, I'm not attacking you personally - it just seems logical that when you give a serious reply to a facetious post, that the joke went over your head. You gave no indication otherwise, so maybe next time include some kind of disclaimer like "I know you're kidding, but on a more serious note..."
FWIW, I didn't see your post as a "rant", just more like an interesting observation. Why bother to refute a point that you don't seriously believe the parent is making?
Now that you mention it, yes, I've been to Phoenix - though I'm from Minnesota, where 103 is "absolutely" hot, it might not seem that way to visitors from Arizona!
The first time I was in Phoenix was in January, when it was a very nice 74. The second time, I had a 3-hour layover at Sky Harbor in July. I decided to take a walk around the airport. I got about 50 steps out the door, turned around, and went back inside!:)
Slashdot Mirror
You're confusing two different meanings of 'compression' - but not to worry, that always happens in articles on this topic.
Oh, and that's assuming the LP wasn't digitally mastered. If it was, then the point is moot - the vinyl can't capture anything that wasn't in the digital master.
You can skip step 1 (Randall did).
Q: What do drummers and groupies have in common? :)
A: They both like to hang out with musicians.
Gotcha. Thanks for enlightening me!
> do some performance coding in an interpreted language like Python or MatLab, with an automatic fail if they use a FOR loop.
Maybe I've been out of the game too long, but what exactly is wrong with FOR loops..?
Yes, but I didn't use the term to refer to teens having normal sexual relationships with each other. I was thinking of the molestor/harasser/sexual predator who targets teens - the general public would classify him (or her) as a pedophile, whereas the police and criminal psychologists would not.
Pardon me, but it's not a strawman. I was directly addressing your comment that it's "idiotic" to claim that a picture, in itself, is not dangerous. There can be any number of reasons for people to view photographs of crimes (including police investigation) which have nothing to do with creating a "demand" for such material. Yet you think the material itself should be illegal?
Look, there are plenty of people out there who get off on violence. Does Hollywood contribute to this problem with violent movies? Do people watching "Bumfight" videos belong in jail along with the batterers out there?
Alcohol and tobacco harm minors who get ahold of them illegally. Am I now "dangerous" for buying beer and cigarettes just because I contribute to a demand for them?
That's his point - in this society, the concept of "pedophile" has been systematically confused with all sexual conduct with minors. I have seen plenty of guys called "pedos" online when they mentioned how attractive a young starlet is (e.g. Lindsey Lohan a few years ago, Mary Kate + Ashley, etc.)
To the average person, there's no difference. Fortunately psychiatrists know the difference, and (most) police do too. Being attracted to adolescents is perfectly natural; that's what puberty is for. But there's a big difference between simply being attracted to someone and sexually abusing them.
Here is a picture of a murder being committed - Jack Ruby shooting Lee Harvey Oswald.
Was Oswald harmed by the photographer?
Was Oswald harmed by you looking at the photograph?
Was Oswald harmed by the publishers who profited from the sales of millions of books containing this photo.
No. Oswald was harmed by Jack Ruby (and for that matter, anyone Ruby might have been working for). A photograph of a crime is not a crime.
"I will have the penne a la arabiata... No, I do not need a tray to kill you. I can kill you without a tray!"
> That article is one big string of factual errors, from beginning to end. He can't even get the simple, well known, and easy to find facts correct.
> Everyone in that thread is regurgitating second-hand information that they really don't understand.
> I'd still look forward to reading some better sources for those facts...
Your silence has certainly convinced me that you know what you're talking about, while none of those other folks do.
> This isn't the simple case of buying a DVD player so you can watch DVD's. This is the case of "Buy our brand's DVD Player so you can listen to our brand of DVDs".
So basically it's no different than what Sony did with their MiniDisc format?
So, perhaps you'd care to point out the errors? It's better to educate people than just tell them they are wrong.
I'll keep looking, but from everything I've found so far, it's evident that CRT-based computer monitors can achieve HD resolutions, while CRT televisions cannot. Only the Sony SFP sets came close, and those are no longer available.http://www.dansdata.com/gz029.htm
The Sony "Super Fine Pitch" tubes have about 1400 slits per scanline in their aperture grilles, which they claim is "65% more" than most tubes. That leaves most tubes with 900 or less resolvable triads per line.
Bear in mind that CRT computer displays typically have a dot pitch of 0.35mm or less, whereas television CRTs (including HD) need to be brighter, and have a dot pitch between 0.7mm and 1mm
http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=752049
Maybe it's more like "What cool thing can we make with this set of Tinkertoys?" (or Lego(TM) bricks, or Lincoln Logs, or Play-Doh, or breakfast cereals, or fruit bats...)
"By definition"? What definition are you using for "small" and "cheap," because LCD computer monitors that do 1920 x 1200 can be found for $400 or less. LCD TVs are more expensive than monitors, but it shows that such resolution is quite possible at low cost. As for size, Sanyo developed a full 1080p capable LCD that's a mere 7.1" in size.
Moreover, most CRT-based HDTV units have an aperture grille that only has 800-900 dots per scanline. Sure, they will accept an HD signal and may even display an image at 1080i resolution, but it is not physically possible for them to resolve every pixel in the image.
Sure, but if I see something in the picture that catches my interest, and I hit pause and move closer to the screen, I want to see more detail - not less, not the same amount.
And yes, you pr0n-addled plebes, there are some things worth examining up close even in non-adult movies!
I can't be the only one who read 'NSF' that way....
My first thought was "Great, now I can listen to my bank telling me my check bounced!"
"Oog give pretty shiny things for iPod, but battery die after 18 months. Oog smash Jobs!"
The obvious solution is for Slashcode to show the total mod points for a post, followed by *all* the reasons for various mods.
For example:
(Score:5, Funny, Insightful)
(Score:-1, Offtopic, Flamebait)
But I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for that feature!
Look, I'm not attacking you personally - it just seems logical that when you give a serious reply to a facetious post, that the joke went over your head. You gave no indication otherwise, so maybe next time include some kind of disclaimer like "I know you're kidding, but on a more serious note..."
FWIW, I didn't see your post as a "rant", just more like an interesting observation. Why bother to refute a point that you don't seriously believe the parent is making?
I don't know - you replied to my post, but maybe you meant to reply to WombatDeath?
:)
Either way, you still appear to be giving a serious reply to a joke comment!
Now that you mention it, yes, I've been to Phoenix - though I'm from Minnesota, where 103 is "absolutely" hot, it might not seem that way to visitors from Arizona!
:)
The first time I was in Phoenix was in January, when it was a very nice 74. The second time, I had a 3-hour layover at Sky Harbor in July. I decided to take a walk around the airport. I got about 50 steps out the door, turned around, and went back inside!
...whoosh! (I was implying "absolute hot" is the temperature at which 100% of people will agree that it's hot)