No, bring back the 16C! That's a true Slashdot geek's calculator.
Perhaps this posting is an opportune place to mention nonpareil, the HP calculator simulator that actually uses the original ROMs and will flawlessly emulate a 15C, 12C, 11C or 16C. I've programmed one of the buttons on my keyboard to bring up nonpareil in 16C mode.
If you broaden your definition of "calculator", the most popular RPN calculators are the cash registers you find in stores. For the benefit of those who have never worked retail, I'd better explain that most cash registers work by having you enter the price, then push a button which equates to "+" on an RPN calculator.
Similarly, for 3 items at $3.99 you push $3.99 [enter] 3 [multiply]. Watch carefully next time you buy stuff at a store that doesn't use bar code scanning yet.
From reading the answers, I think the true statement is that people hate developing desktop apps for Windows.
The crufty GUI code, the horrible installers, the COM string and duct tape, the.NET version hell, all that stuff is specific to Windows development.
Mac OS X application development is almost a pleasure in comparison. Even Java and Swing is nicer.
Having done Windows, OS X, Java and web app development, I'd definitely pick Windows as my least favorite. But I'd take OS X or Java over web app development any day.
One fact that all the "it'll work like a real community" utopians miss is that, medically speaking, about 1 in 30 people are sociopaths. [...] There is a name and a face on each such action, and that might come back to bite them in the ass. So they proceed to be normal members of society, for lack of a choice.
Another factor is upscaler quality. I have a DVD player with a Faroudja upscaler, and DVDs played with it look pretty much indistinguishable from HDTV on my set. That is, a well encoded DVD movie looks about as good as (say) an HD episode of CSI.
That's why I'm in no hurry to get Blu-ray or HD-DVD. I'll wait for one of 'em to win (and for someone to start selling region-free players if Blu-ray wins).
Yes, well, a faggot is a bundle of sticks tied together to be used as fuel, but that doesn't mean it would be a well-advised name for a package management system.
In practical terms, the difference is that saying the GPL does not grant people the right to take rights away from other people is an intellectually honest statement that will get your viewpoint listened to, whereas saying that the GPL reserves special rights for some will likely see other people dismiss your point of view as FUD-spreading.
Oh, sure. The theatrical cropping for The Shining not only wasn't exactly HDTV cropping, it was also different in the USA and Europe; and of course, Kubrick shot "2001" in 70mm Cinerama, so you can't get the authentic experience without a curved screen...
As to why HDTV is 16:9 (1.78:1), the simple answer is that it's native DVD aspect ratio. But that just begs the question of why DVD has that aspect ratio, and the answer is that it's a compromise. It's roughly the mid-point between Academy ratio (1.33:1) and the most common ultra-widescreen theatrical ratios (Panavision etc, 2.35:1), chosen so DVD would be able to do the best job possible of a wide range of source material.
Happily, it's also close enough to the Golden Ratio that it looks very pleasing to the eye. I'm actually coming to prefer 1.78:1 to 2.35:1.
First off, I know that many of Kubrick's films were shot in Academy ratio. I was referring to the fact that the original Warner Kubrick DVDs were mastered from Laserdisc masters, and had horrible image quality. This was somewhat improved with the later "Kubrick Collection" releases, though "2001" is still problematic. The comment about lack of widescreen releases of many movies was referring to other Warner-distributed movies, such as David Byrne's "True Stories".
But at any rate, since no Kubrick movies were released on DVD until after his death, we can't know for sure what he would have decided regarding whether to release 1.33:1 versions for compatibility with old TVs, or 16:9 enhanced releases for HDTV owners. He certainly shot the films in the full knowledge that their theatrical aspect ratio would be closer to 16:9.
I personally think that "The Shining" in particular is a far better movie cropped to 16:9 than it is at 1.33:1, and not just because of the helicopter shadow in the opening. I think Kubrick would have wanted his movies to use the entire 16:9 screen, just like he wanted them to fill the whole 1.33:1 screen. Thus, I believe he would have wanted to see 16:9 DVD releases of his post-"Barry Lyndon" movies, restoring the original theatrical cropping.
It's actually misleading to say that Kubrick "didn't shoot in widescreen". Rather, like James Cameron, he shot for both theatrical presentation and video. If you watch the documentary on the making of "The Shining", I believe at one point you can see a preview screen with both image areas marked on it.
I actually do the same thing with my home movies, using Scotch tape to mark the 16:9 area on the camcorder LCD...
Well, I've visited Canadian art museums in Quebec and BC, and I'm afraid my viewpoint is that quotas and subsidy have resulted in a lot of really bad third-rate art. Whereas the UK has no quotas forcing anyone to feature UK artists on radio or TV, yet continues to have world-class TV and music.
Actually, there was a fairly lengthy technical investigation, and it turned out that the Warner release of "The Matrix" was improperly mastered--it didn't actually meet the DVD standards.
Annoyingly, Warner didn't bother to remaster it, which is the main reason why I never bought the DVD. Warner have generally done a bad job of DVD mastering over the years--consider also the initial Kubrick DVDs, the continuing lack of widescreen releases of many Warner movies, the crappy cardboard packaging...
However, a lot of open source projects use non-portable MySQL "SQL", and hence don't work if you try to use PostgreSQL as your back end. A hack like this that actually worked would let you run crappy open source code on a more scalable database back end.
Slashdot Mirror
No, bring back the 16C! That's a true Slashdot geek's calculator.
Perhaps this posting is an opportune place to mention nonpareil, the HP calculator simulator that actually uses the original ROMs and will flawlessly emulate a 15C, 12C, 11C or 16C. I've programmed one of the buttons on my keyboard to bring up nonpareil in 16C mode.
If you broaden your definition of "calculator", the most popular RPN calculators are the cash registers you find in stores. For the benefit of those who have never worked retail, I'd better explain that most cash registers work by having you enter the price, then push a button which equates to "+" on an RPN calculator.
Similarly, for 3 items at $3.99 you push $3.99 [enter] 3 [multiply]. Watch carefully next time you buy stuff at a store that doesn't use bar code scanning yet.
From reading the answers, I think the true statement is that people hate developing desktop apps for Windows.
.NET version hell, all that stuff is specific to Windows development.
The crufty GUI code, the horrible installers, the COM string and duct tape, the
Mac OS X application development is almost a pleasure in comparison. Even Java and Swing is nicer.
Having done Windows, OS X, Java and web app development, I'd definitely pick Windows as my least favorite. But I'd take OS X or Java over web app development any day.
I thought they just moved to Washington DC.
I look forward to SuSE removing Mono (and hence GNOME) from OpenSuSE.
Funny, my copy includes Mono.
Another factor is upscaler quality. I have a DVD player with a Faroudja upscaler, and DVDs played with it look pretty much indistinguishable from HDTV on my set. That is, a well encoded DVD movie looks about as good as (say) an HD episode of CSI.
That's why I'm in no hurry to get Blu-ray or HD-DVD. I'll wait for one of 'em to win (and for someone to start selling region-free players if Blu-ray wins).
I use "overrated" because there isn't an option for "wrong". If the latter problem was fixed, I wouldn't have any use for "overrated".
Actually, the FAGGOT package manager has been pushed back to Ubuntu 8.1 "Gay Giraffe".
I vote we do it by switching to Jabber/XMPP.
Yes, well, a faggot is a bundle of sticks tied together to be used as fuel, but that doesn't mean it would be a well-advised name for a package management system.
Left the UK in the late 90s, don't think I could go back.
No, they're $29 now. Though personally, I'd go for a Kensington Slimtype or a Matias Tactile Pro.
Oh shit, the MacBook Pro has ATI graphics? I had vague plans on upgrading to one this year. I guess I might as well go with a MacBook then.
Yeah, ATI's drivers for Linux are teh suck. The open source drivers might not be as fast, but at least they actually work, unlike ATI's.
And appropriately enough, the "leader of the free world" looks like a chimp.
[Someone had to say it.]
Same goes for hippie infestations.
In practical terms, the difference is that saying the GPL does not grant people the right to take rights away from other people is an intellectually honest statement that will get your viewpoint listened to, whereas saying that the GPL reserves special rights for some will likely see other people dismiss your point of view as FUD-spreading.
Oh, sure. The theatrical cropping for The Shining not only wasn't exactly HDTV cropping, it was also different in the USA and Europe; and of course, Kubrick shot "2001" in 70mm Cinerama, so you can't get the authentic experience without a curved screen...
As to why HDTV is 16:9 (1.78:1), the simple answer is that it's native DVD aspect ratio. But that just begs the question of why DVD has that aspect ratio, and the answer is that it's a compromise. It's roughly the mid-point between Academy ratio (1.33:1) and the most common ultra-widescreen theatrical ratios (Panavision etc, 2.35:1), chosen so DVD would be able to do the best job possible of a wide range of source material.
Happily, it's also close enough to the Golden Ratio that it looks very pleasing to the eye. I'm actually coming to prefer 1.78:1 to 2.35:1.
First off, I know that many of Kubrick's films were shot in Academy ratio. I was referring to the fact that the original Warner Kubrick DVDs were mastered from Laserdisc masters, and had horrible image quality. This was somewhat improved with the later "Kubrick Collection" releases, though "2001" is still problematic. The comment about lack of widescreen releases of many movies was referring to other Warner-distributed movies, such as David Byrne's "True Stories".
But at any rate, since no Kubrick movies were released on DVD until after his death, we can't know for sure what he would have decided regarding whether to release 1.33:1 versions for compatibility with old TVs, or 16:9 enhanced releases for HDTV owners. He certainly shot the films in the full knowledge that their theatrical aspect ratio would be closer to 16:9.
I personally think that "The Shining" in particular is a far better movie cropped to 16:9 than it is at 1.33:1, and not just because of the helicopter shadow in the opening. I think Kubrick would have wanted his movies to use the entire 16:9 screen, just like he wanted them to fill the whole 1.33:1 screen. Thus, I believe he would have wanted to see 16:9 DVD releases of his post-"Barry Lyndon" movies, restoring the original theatrical cropping.
It's actually misleading to say that Kubrick "didn't shoot in widescreen". Rather, like James Cameron, he shot for both theatrical presentation and video. If you watch the documentary on the making of "The Shining", I believe at one point you can see a preview screen with both image areas marked on it.
I actually do the same thing with my home movies, using Scotch tape to mark the 16:9 area on the camcorder LCD...
Well, I can't account for your lack of taste. Some people even think Seinfeld is funny.
The League of Gentlemen, Dr Who, Spaced, Life On Mars, Green Wing, The Office, Wire in the Blood, Spooks... No, nothing worth watching there, eh?
Indexes starting at 0 might be unintuitive to people who aren't programmers, but it gets rid of a lot of +1s and -1s in your source code.
Well, I've visited Canadian art museums in Quebec and BC, and I'm afraid my viewpoint is that quotas and subsidy have resulted in a lot of really bad third-rate art. Whereas the UK has no quotas forcing anyone to feature UK artists on radio or TV, yet continues to have world-class TV and music.
Actually, there was a fairly lengthy technical investigation, and it turned out that the Warner release of "The Matrix" was improperly mastered--it didn't actually meet the DVD standards.
Annoyingly, Warner didn't bother to remaster it, which is the main reason why I never bought the DVD. Warner have generally done a bad job of DVD mastering over the years--consider also the initial Kubrick DVDs, the continuing lack of widescreen releases of many Warner movies, the crappy cardboard packaging...
Actually, it's a useful idea. MySQL is only faster than PostgreSQL for "toy" databases (low concurrency, few transactions needed per second), or if you throw away ACID capabilities.
However, a lot of open source projects use non-portable MySQL "SQL", and hence don't work if you try to use PostgreSQL as your back end. A hack like this that actually worked would let you run crappy open source code on a more scalable database back end.
No, it's copyright law that reserves that right to the copyright holder. The GPL merely fails to grant it to additional parties.