ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS (one station), WB, Fox (two stations).
CSI, NCIS, House, Prison Break, Numbers, those are all HD. Ocean's 11 last night was in HD-- although (as per usual) it was ripped apart by censors. Football's in HD, and so were the Olympics.
The Simpsons is still upconverted. Malcolm in the Middle was HD.
Of the shows that I don't watch, but know to be HD: Saturday Night Live Desperate Housewives American Idol Law and Order One station even has a local news program in HD.
Basically everything that's new, and isn't made on the cheap--e.g Survivor.
Much of PBS's content is actually upconverted Widescreen 480(p/i), but the newer stuff is HD. Digitally but standard def only: MHZ, UniVision, PAX.
Oh all right, then. There were only a few titles available for DVD in the early days too. I think the HD-DVD people have promised about 200 titles by years end. In the meantime: List of HDDVD releases.
Most of the HD-DVD players I've seen are set up improperly-- there's very little detail in the shadows. But a well set up player looks amazing-- far superior to upsampled DVD.
Don't get me wrong. I don't have a player, and am not just waiting for bluray. That decision has more to do with the sky high cost of discs and players than anything else. Oh, and a little thing called hdmi. I just don't have the soldering skills to implement Crosby's ideas
I don't think a sharper, higher-resolution version of the exact same image
But it's not. HD is widescreen. If the picture you saw was 4:3, odds are good that it was merely scaled up to 1080i. A true HD picture is lot more detailed.
But OTA isn't analog, so your comment is confusing.
OTA means "Over the Air". You can receive both ntsc (analog) and digital (atsc) OTA. NTSC isn't worth much, though a very weak analog signal may be at least watchable.
there isn't that much HD programming available, etc
What the fuck are you talking about? 35mm film has a higher resolution than SD, and even HD-- so if studios want to release movies on bluray or hddvd, they can release discs which will be visually superior to DVD. Primetime Television has been HD for a couple of years now.
Yes.there are currently only a limited number of hd-dvd titles available. But this has nothing to do with a lack of programming, and more to do with the fact that hd-dvd is quite new.
Unfortunately, the cost of the case precludes any expenditures on actual furniture, so an old folding card table must be used to support a 70 pound monitor. It visibly sags but the threat of a catastrophic collapse keeps life interesting.
How many people are injured or killed in factories making Nike footwear, or clothing for corporations each year, while being treated worse than animals, being paid as little as 20 cents per hour.
Hey, they're just taking advantage of local labor standards. Maybe even Chinese labor standards.
It's rather hit and miss, I'm afraid, depending on how the disc was mastered--sometimes the option to switch commentaries on the fly is disabled.. And quite frankly, if the Cast and Crew commentary is labeled ENGLISH5, the on screen display messages are of little help.
That's right, nothing. (Okay, somewone will post another reason to upgrade in a second or two, just to prove me wrong. Bastards.:-) ).
That's right. The users on a home theater board I patronize are currently debating the merits of dolby digital plus and dts-hd, and then they flame each other over the theoretical merits of bluray over hd-dvd.
But, then, if you believe that mp3 encoding doesn't downgrade the audio, the lure of even higher encoding rates of (gasp) lossless audio is very slight indeed. Oh, yes, the newer formats are "7.1", rather than dolby's "5.1" or dts-es's "6.1". Hardly worth worrying about.
The video is the main draw, though. With proper display calibration, it looks amazing. There's only so much an upsampling dvd player can do.
On the other hand, if you want to save some cash, you can inculcate yourself against the upgrade bug by viewing one of the many mis-callibrated hddvd displays:
"Wow, I can discern individual pixels." "Wow, HD-DVD discs have no detail in shadows."
The menu system used by hddvd is pretty spiffy, as it allows a user to change settings (commentary tracks, subtitle tracks etc.) without stopping the movie. Certain of these menus have sound effects associated with them, and supposedly this has caused a great many problems, as the sound levels ate no longer standardized from disc to disc.
Thus the crime of treason consists of two elements: adherence to the enemy; and rendering him aid and comfort. A citizen intellectually or emotionally may favor the enemy and harbor sympathies or convictions disloyal to this country's policy or interest, but so long as he commits no act of aid and comfort to the enemy, there is no treason. On the other hand, a citizen may take actions, which do aid and comfort the enemy- making a speech critical of the government or opposing its measures, profiteering, striking in defense plants or essential work, and the hundred other things which impair our cohesion and diminish our strength- but if there is no adherence to the enemy in this, if there is no intent to betray, there is no treason.
Having thus by definition made treason consist of something outward and visible and capable of direct proof, the framers turned to safeguarding procedures of trial and ordained that 'No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.' This repeats in procedural terms the concept that thoughts and attitudes alone cannot make a treason. It need not trouble us that we find so dominant a purpose emphasized in two different ways. But does the procedural requirement add some limitation not already present in the definition of the crime, and if so, what?
While to prove giving of aid and comfort would require the prosecution to show actions and deeds, if the Constitution stopped there, such acts could be inferred from circumstantial evidence. This the framers thought would not do. 41 So they added what in effect is a command that the overt acts must be established by direct evidence, and the direct testimony must be that of two witnesses instead of one. In this sense the overt act procedural provision adds something, and something important, to the definition.
Interpret that as you will. I will point out, however, that constitution limitations on the scope of a treason charge did not prevent lilly-levered members of congress from defining certain other acts as sedition.
Information is introduced via mutations. It is filtered via selection. Filtering information does not add information. It may increase its quality, but not its quantity.
Is there a difference?
Suppose you are interested in making chili. As you probably know, there are any number of variations that can be made on a basic recipe of a spice cabinet, chili powder, tomatoes, pork, chili peppers and beer. Some work, some don't work. The secret to making good chile is to systematically vary your style, until you hit on a variation that impresses your guests. Some variations will flop. Some will be so good that varying that recipe will produce the most consistency. Over years and years, you may test dozens or hundreds of recipes. But some will be forgettable, and some will be very memorable. As a cook, your reputation will not rest on the fact that you have tried everything, but on your very best. The quantity of information matters not. The quality, however, does.
But what if the fastest guy not only outruns the bear, but ends up fucking your wife while you're still trying to escape from the grizzly? Face it, mediocrity just isn't good enough.
The parent post really deserves to be moderated up. A good concise rebuttal of the "information theory" carnard. Darwin's whole point was that the natural environment acts as a selective breeder, and that you don't need an intelligent force to produce the vast panoply of life.
I think it's safe to say that Darwin's intended audience was familiar with the practice of selective breeding. Those cows, chickens, sheep, and pigs which did not display a desired phenotype were sold as meat. Those that did were used as breeders. Nature simply selects for organisms that can reproduce organisms that can survive to reproduce. Those that can't get eaten or starve.
All through this article, Ms Holzer uses the term "intellectual property owner" where she means "patent owner". I know its all the rage these days to blur the lines between copyright, trade secrets, attribution rights, patents, moral rights, trademarks, etc etc, but this is the legal section of an economics rag.
Moral Rights are inalienable, and for this reason, are not a form of property, intellectual or otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS (one station), WB, Fox (two stations).
CSI, NCIS, House, Prison Break, Numbers, those are all HD. Ocean's 11 last night was in HD-- although (as per usual) it was ripped apart by censors. Football's in HD, and so were the Olympics.
The Simpsons is still upconverted. Malcolm in the Middle was HD.
Of the shows that I don't watch, but know to be HD:
Saturday Night Live
Desperate Housewives
American Idol
Law and Order
One station even has a local news program in HD.
Basically everything that's new, and isn't made on the cheap--e.g Survivor.
Much of PBS's content is actually upconverted Widescreen 480(p/i), but the newer stuff is HD.
Digitally but standard def only:
MHZ, UniVision, PAX.
I live near Washington DC.
Oh all right, then. There were only a few titles available for DVD in the early days too. I think the HD-DVD people have promised about 200 titles by years end. In the meantime: List of HDDVD releases.
Most of the HD-DVD players I've seen are set up improperly-- there's very little detail in the shadows. But a well set up player looks amazing-- far superior to upsampled DVD.
Don't get me wrong. I don't have a player, and am not just waiting for bluray. That decision has more to do with the sky high cost of discs and players than anything else. Oh, and a little thing called hdmi. I just don't have the soldering skills to implement Crosby's ideas
I don't think a sharper, higher-resolution version of the exact same image
But it's not. HD is widescreen. If the picture you saw was 4:3, odds are good that it was merely scaled up to 1080i. A true HD picture is lot more detailed.
But OTA isn't analog, so your comment is confusing.
OTA means "Over the Air". You can receive both ntsc (analog) and digital (atsc) OTA. NTSC isn't worth much, though a very weak analog signal may be at least watchable.
there isn't that much HD programming available, etc
What the fuck are you talking about? 35mm film has a higher resolution than SD, and even HD-- so if studios want to release movies on bluray or hddvd, they can release discs which will be visually superior to DVD. Primetime Television has been HD for a couple of years now.
Yes.there are currently only a limited number of hd-dvd titles available. But this has nothing to do with a lack of programming, and more to do with the fact that hd-dvd is quite new.
or worse yet:
"Stuffing cattle into crowded pens can lead to disease outbreaks. Better put antibiotics in their feed."
Still, until you can show widespread DDT resistance, the analogy isn't entirely apt.
That's exactly the same kind of attitude that leads to penicillin resistant bacteria.
I take it that you've never been to Bangladesh.
That's like saying it was the staph that killed him, not the ban on penicilin.
I suppose you haven't heard of penicillin resistant staphylococcus.
Unfortunately, the cost of the case precludes any expenditures on actual furniture, so an old folding card table must be used to support a 70 pound monitor. It visibly sags but the threat of a catastrophic collapse keeps life interesting.
Is terrorism ok if its for money?
OK? OK? Have you no moral sense whatsoever? Or must you submit every ethical dilemma to "Ask Slashdot?".
Maybe you should consider the following questions before posing such questions.
What's terrorism?
What's "ok"?
What does "for money" mean?
And don't go quoting the dictionary, Mr Anonymous Coward. Plagiarists will receive a failing grade.
How many people are injured or killed in factories making Nike footwear, or clothing for corporations each year, while being treated worse than animals, being paid as little as 20 cents per hour.
Hey, they're just taking advantage of local labor standards. Maybe even Chinese labor standards.
grandparent is right. Xinhua doesn't know how to write stories, but it knows how to write propaganda.
It's rather hit and miss, I'm afraid, depending on how the disc was mastered--sometimes the option to switch commentaries on the fly is disabled.. And quite frankly, if the Cast and Crew commentary is labeled ENGLISH5, the on screen display messages are of little help.
That's right, nothing. (Okay, somewone will post another reason to upgrade in a second or two, just to prove me wrong. Bastards. :-) ).
That's right. The users on a home theater board I patronize are currently debating the merits of dolby digital plus and dts-hd, and then they flame each other over the theoretical merits of bluray over hd-dvd.
But, then, if you believe that mp3 encoding doesn't downgrade the audio, the lure of even higher encoding rates of (gasp) lossless audio is very slight indeed. Oh, yes, the newer formats are "7.1", rather than dolby's "5.1" or dts-es's "6.1". Hardly worth worrying about.
The video is the main draw, though. With proper display calibration, it looks amazing. There's only so much an upsampling dvd player can do.
On the other hand, if you want to save some cash, you can inculcate yourself against the upgrade bug by viewing one of the many mis-callibrated hddvd displays:
"Wow, I can discern individual pixels."
"Wow, HD-DVD discs have no detail in shadows."
The menu system used by hddvd is pretty spiffy, as it allows a user to change settings (commentary tracks, subtitle tracks etc.) without stopping the movie. Certain of these menus have sound effects associated with them, and supposedly this has caused a great many problems, as the sound levels ate no longer standardized from disc to disc.
Interpret that as you will. I will point out, however, that constitution limitations on the scope of a treason charge did not prevent lilly-levered members of congress from defining certain other acts as sedition.
Information is introduced via mutations. It is filtered via selection. Filtering information does not add information. It may increase its quality, but not its quantity.
Is there a difference?
Suppose you are interested in making chili. As you probably know, there are any number of variations that can be made on a basic recipe of a spice cabinet, chili powder, tomatoes, pork, chili peppers and beer. Some work, some don't work. The secret to making good chile is to systematically vary your style, until you hit on a variation that impresses your guests. Some variations will flop. Some will be so good that varying that recipe will produce the most consistency. Over years and years, you may test dozens or hundreds of recipes. But some will be forgettable, and some will be very memorable. As a cook, your reputation will not rest on the fact that you have tried everything, but on your very best. The quantity of information matters not. The quality, however, does.
But what if the fastest guy not only outruns the bear, but ends up fucking your wife while you're still trying to escape from the grizzly? Face it, mediocrity just isn't good enough.
The parent post really deserves to be moderated up. A good concise rebuttal of the "information theory" carnard. Darwin's whole point was that the natural environment acts as a selective breeder, and that you don't need an intelligent force to produce the vast panoply of life.
I think it's safe to say that Darwin's intended audience was familiar with the practice of selective breeding. Those cows, chickens, sheep, and pigs which did not display a desired phenotype were sold as meat. Those that did were used as breeders. Nature simply selects for organisms that can reproduce organisms that can survive to reproduce. Those that can't get eaten or starve.
Maybe you should ditch the tabloids for a real newspaper.
All through this article, Ms Holzer uses the term "intellectual property owner" where she means "patent owner". I know its all the rage these days to blur the lines between copyright, trade secrets, attribution rights, patents, moral rights, trademarks, etc etc, but this is the legal section of an economics rag.
Moral Rights are inalienable, and for this reason, are not a form of property, intellectual or otherwise.
If sony's trying to target the adult gamer market, the numbers might be even more in their favor.
95% this. 5% that.
Come on! You're just pulling numbers out of your ass in an effort to paste over the following argument;
I'm kind of sort of interested in the PS3. I don't have a HDTV. Therefore, the HDTV capability is a waste of circuitry.
Who? A Psychic? What's that?