Do you know anything about digital movies other than the fact that they have the magic buzzword "digital" associated with them? Do you know what the resolution is? What it should be? What the resolution of film is? What about the color range? How about the contrast range? You just heard the word "digital" and assumed it must be better, didn't you?
Don't patronize me, you don't know anything about me. I know that 'digital' means the reproduction will look exactly the same as the master recording. I know that it's easier to transmit digital, lends itself better to compression for faster transmission, and that the recordings last longer and don't wear down in repeated playings. I have also actually SEEN several digital projected movies, and they looked astounding. So I'm not just talking theory, as you probably are.
This is not about digital vs. analog. We all know about that, we all understand the advantages of digital over analog, and I am not arguing about that. This is about quality.
Yes, and the quality of the movies I saw (both of which were shown in analog and digital) was outstanding. And when there were quiet parts in the movie, I did not have to hear the clickety-clack of the film projector.
I am slamming them because as they stand now, they do not have the same quality as film.
You're right, the digital projected films I saw looked BETTER than the analog films.
Forgive my Canadian bias, but Americans just don't seem all that flexible in this regard. It would require changing school curriculum, and seeing as what's taught to children appears to be a somewhat taboo topic.. (just look at the arguments over creationism)
Excuse me. Are you trying to equate the teaching of an unsubstantiated myth in public schools thereby violating the constitutional separation of Church and State, with teaching kids in the metric system?
By the way, the metric system will become common just as soon as:
1. The NFL disappears (and its 100-yard field).
2. Machine gun ammunition round lengths are changed (as opposed to 'the whole nine yards').
and most importantly
3. Monkeys fly out of my butt.
I love those people that can't understand why we still don't use the metric measuring system, as they drive on the "wrong" side of their cars and their roads.
Hey, if you're going to make it easier to kill other men and women under the guise of war, you should be willing to risk your own life.
Why? We generally don't start wars in America, we finish them (one way or another). If another country is going to commit an act of war, then why should we risk American lives trying to end that war?
Perhaps one only realizes the value of all life when one's own has been put in danger, or sacrificed
So you think that if one pilot risks his life, that suddenly there will be millions of Americans that all of a sudden understand the value of all life?
Wars are going to happen. The question is whether or not we risk our lives in them. Sure, I'd feel differently about this if we lived in Germany, and Hitler was building these planes to take over the world. But until I see the US attacking other countries, unprovoked, I don't have any problem with it whatsoever.
What if the person is unconcious? Is that a dead person or an alive person? What if they're alive, but not breathing? Could it even tell if they were breathing? Could I fool the machine into thinking I was dead?
Well, think to yourself how you would determine if someone is still alive. Let's see: heartbeat, and body temperature are both great indicators. Are you trying to say a robot could not determine either of those?
Smart bombs and fire-and-forget missiles abstract killing to a small blip on a phosphorescent screen far removed from the actual event.
HUH?
Did you actually watch any of the news coverage of the PG? Did you not witness the fact that those fire-and-forget rockets have cameras on them, so if anything, we get to witness more of the brutality, not less?
As opposed to just the pilot seeing the bombs explode, we can now actually see the PEOPLE explode. This would seem to contradict your argument that the more sophisticated we get, the more we are removed from the violence. On the contrary...
Unmanned flying gunships, I'm afraid, are a step in the wrong direction.
You're right, we should continue to risk the lives of men and women in battle!
In fact, compared to dreamweaver, its almost sexy code.
Are you kidding? We went to Dreamweaver from FrontPage specifically because of the much better handling of the HTML. At least dreamweaver doesn't screw up the HTML code you've already written by hand! FP is just annoying...
Lord knows every other internet appliance has failed miserably.
It's a real stretch to call the crap that's been released so far an 'internet appliance.' More like network computers.
Let me know when the high-speed, wireless webpads with touch LCD screens and instant-on capabilities show up! These real internet appliances will be rolling out in 2001. Let the games begin!
Pardon me, but it's late, and I'm sick to death of this industry attitude that when someone wins a marketplace battle against Microsoft it's just until the next rev, but when Microsoft wins marketplace battles, it's forever.
See, there was this thing called an ANTI-TRUST LAWSUIT, and Microsoft was verified to be a MONOPOLIST that ILLEGALLY LEVERAGED THAT MONOPOLY and this case will eventually land in the SUPREME COURT where these very smart judges will confirm what every single worker in the tech industry outside of Redmond already knows: GAME OVER.
By the way... please name one other product Microsoft has controlled forever where their product and their primary competitive product is free and easily downloaded on the web.
Netscape has joined the dark side, and I get chills any time I try to use it.
Then why aren't you using Mozilla?
the terrible UI
Moot point. The UI is completely customizable. People will release all manners of UI replacements to choose from.
The problem is also that IE now functions so cleanly and so smoothly that Netscape is hardly a contender anymore.
As you and the clueless/. 'michael' don't seem to understand is that there is nearly impossible for Netscape to compete with MSIE. The biggest complaints I hear are that Netscape is bloated and it takes too long to load up. MSIE would have the same problems if they hadn't embedded everything into the OS. You're loading MSIE when you boot up Windows. You have no choice. If Netscape was able to leverage Windows in the same manner with the Gecko engine, we'd all be in heaven.
I hate to say it folks, but the battle is drawing to a finish, and Microsoft is emerging as the victor.
Yes, Microsoft is currently winning, after illegaly leveraging their monopoly. Funny, I seem to remember a time when a company called Netscape was winning this war by a much larger margin, and everyone laughed at Microsoft's web browser. In other words, THE BROWSER "WAR" AIN'T EVER GOING TO BE OVER! It's dynamic. Anyone that tells me the browser war is over immediately earns a spot in my 'moron' bucket.
Netscape made some serious blunders, and while they may scoop in a few dollars before they go, they will likely disappear within the next few years.
Yeah right. And Linux will disappear in a few years. And Apache. And [insert open source project here.] Just because YOU might not be using something doesn't mean it has disappeared. Who cares if AOL drops Netscape development? It's too far along now, it will be used.
The software company I work for has stopped bothering to support Netscape because it is so divergent, and also because within the next year or so it will lose market share until it finds itself in the company of Opera and Lynx.
Please say what you really mean: your company is not going to support the HTML standards.
I'm really tired of these stupid flamefest articles on slashdot about Netscape/Mozilla/MSIE. One minute it's/. saying how wonderful mozilla is, keep up the great work, blah blah blah. Then it's michael coming off looking like a class-A idiot.
It might help if the editors would just post the news instead of their opinions.
Yes, I am voting Libertarian this year. It is true that in a LIBERTARIAN SOCIETY, there should be no restrictions on who gives money to whom. However, we are not living in such a society.
Let me offer you a quote that basically sums up the LP feelings on campaign financing:
"Libertarians know that the only real campaign finance reform is to reduce the size and power of government -- which would eliminate the incentive that special interest groups have to bribe politicians via campaign contributions in an effort to gain access, influence, and tax-funded favors," said LP Political Director Ron Crickenberger.
The problem with the 3rd parties is that they are crackpots. Sorry.
The Republican party used to be a '3rd party.' Are they crackpots, too? Apparantly you don't feel that way simply because they've been a big party for so long.
Brown's [sic] abolish all government idea
Well Browne and the libertarian party do not believe in abolishing ALL government... they simply want to return government to the smallest it can possibly be. How do they propose to do this? Mostly by utilizing capitalism to control things. Privatizing things such as roads, highways, rainforests, etc. If these seem 'wacky' to you, then you might want to read up on the LP ideas, since they are fairly well thought out.
It must seem weird to you to think of the government being as tiny as possible because it's always been as large as possible. The founding fathers' heads would probably explode if they were alive to see how large government has become.
If these parties would only tone down their crackpot ideas to something that a somewhat mainstream person...
By mainstream person, you mean someone that is ignorant, and has not read up on the various issues completely, right? For instance, you said Browne wants to abolish all government. FUD like that is why people tend to stay away from third parties. The other (more important) reason is that the media gives basically ZERO attention to those parties.
It's a vicious cycle. The third parties can't win because they don't get enough coverage. They don't get enough coverage because no one thinks they can win. The two big parties won't change this, because it might mean they would face some outside competition. (Witness the recent debacle keeping Nader and the rest out of the debates.)
Aside from no coverage, they have to overcome the electoral college and soft money, both of which which unfairly promote the two big parties.
For some reason I believe these people are not interested in realpolitik, tho, and would rather wallow in their principles than make a constructive effort to win.
So these people should change what they believe in order to win the election?
How about this instead: (1) Eliminate soft money and PACs. (2) All parties achieving official recognition* as a candidate for office would be given equal time in the media. (3) Reform elections to eliminate the archaic electoral college.
If you do those three things, you will see more voter turnout, you will see a REAL competition for all the public offices, not this two-party sham we've been given for hundreds of years.
-thomas
* Official recognition would be given after the party achieves a certain lofty goal, e.g. collection of two million signatures in favor of recognizing their party for public office consideration.
All of those non-Christian socialist nations out there are finally too degenerate to ever be saved (just look at places like France, where they eat snails for Christ's sake!).
If that were true, wouldn't they also be a Christian nation?
Why? He's a Republican. That means they want the government out of your life (unless you're talking about sexual or religious issues, of course!) In addition, privacy is pro-corporation, because there are lots of companies out there that could be making more money if they could sell their encryption products overseas without as many restrictions. Republicans are pro-business.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you know anything about digital movies other than the fact that they have the magic buzzword "digital" associated with them? Do you know what the resolution is? What it should be? What the resolution of film is? What about the color range? How about the contrast range? You just heard the word "digital" and assumed it must be better, didn't you?
Don't patronize me, you don't know anything about me. I know that 'digital' means the reproduction will look exactly the same as the master recording. I know that it's easier to transmit digital, lends itself better to compression for faster transmission, and that the recordings last longer and don't wear down in repeated playings. I have also actually SEEN several digital projected movies, and they looked astounding. So I'm not just talking theory, as you probably are.
This is not about digital vs. analog. We all know about that, we all understand the advantages of digital over analog, and I am not arguing about that. This is about quality.
Yes, and the quality of the movies I saw (both of which were shown in analog and digital) was outstanding. And when there were quiet parts in the movie, I did not have to hear the clickety-clack of the film projector.
I am slamming them because as they stand now, they do not have the same quality as film.
You're right, the digital projected films I saw looked BETTER than the analog films.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
It doesn't sound cold and lifeless to me. But even if it did, I'd prefer it over the constant hiss of static present in most analog recordings.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
What's there to be excited about?
Oh, I dunno, crystal clear quality?
You still listen to records, don't you?
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Visa/Mastercard is a TRUST. Needless to say, like Microsoft, they are not looking out for your best interests.
Now I know I'm on slashdot. Mentioning Microsoft in a discussion totally devoid of anything related to computers... yeah.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Nah... lotteries are for people too stupid to understand what $5 and compound interest can do...
Yeah, I'm sure you and the other people "that understand what $5 and compound interest can do" never waste money, right?
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Because bad jokes are not politically correct.
Think about the children!
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Lotteries are a tax on people that suck at math
No, lotteries are for people who'd rather throw away $5 on a chance to win millions, rather than $5 on cigarettes and a chance to die.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Forgive my Canadian bias, but Americans just don't seem all that flexible in this regard. It would require changing school curriculum, and seeing as what's taught to children appears to be a somewhat taboo topic.. (just look at the arguments over creationism)
Excuse me. Are you trying to equate the teaching of an unsubstantiated myth in public schools thereby violating the constitutional separation of Church and State, with teaching kids in the metric system?
By the way, the metric system will become common just as soon as:
1. The NFL disappears (and its 100-yard field).
2. Machine gun ammunition round lengths are changed (as opposed to 'the whole nine yards').
and most importantly
3. Monkeys fly out of my butt.
I love those people that can't understand why we still don't use the metric measuring system, as they drive on the "wrong" side of their cars and their roads.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Hey, if you're going to make it easier to kill other men and women under the guise of war, you should be willing to risk your own life.
Why? We generally don't start wars in America, we finish them (one way or another). If another country is going to commit an act of war, then why should we risk American lives trying to end that war?
Perhaps one only realizes the value of all life when one's own has been put in danger, or sacrificed
So you think that if one pilot risks his life, that suddenly there will be millions of Americans that all of a sudden understand the value of all life?
Wars are going to happen. The question is whether or not we risk our lives in them. Sure, I'd feel differently about this if we lived in Germany, and Hitler was building these planes to take over the world. But until I see the US attacking other countries, unprovoked, I don't have any problem with it whatsoever.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
What if the person is unconcious? Is that a dead person or an alive person? What if they're alive, but not breathing? Could it even tell if they were breathing? Could I fool the machine into thinking I was dead?
Well, think to yourself how you would determine if someone is still alive. Let's see: heartbeat, and body temperature are both great indicators. Are you trying to say a robot could not determine either of those?
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Smart bombs and fire-and-forget missiles abstract killing to a small blip on a phosphorescent screen far removed from the actual event.
HUH?
Did you actually watch any of the news coverage of the PG? Did you not witness the fact that those fire-and-forget rockets have cameras on them, so if anything, we get to witness more of the brutality, not less?
As opposed to just the pilot seeing the bombs explode, we can now actually see the PEOPLE explode. This would seem to contradict your argument that the more sophisticated we get, the more we are removed from the violence. On the contrary...
Unmanned flying gunships, I'm afraid, are a step in the wrong direction.
You're right, we should continue to risk the lives of men and women in battle!
Sheesh, and he got rated +5!
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
States with a "shall-issue" gun permit law have an 84% reduction in multiple victim shootings.
"67% of all statistics are made up."
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
In fact, compared to dreamweaver, its almost sexy code.
Are you kidding? We went to Dreamweaver from FrontPage specifically because of the much better handling of the HTML. At least dreamweaver doesn't screw up the HTML code you've already written by hand! FP is just annoying...
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Lord knows every other internet appliance has failed miserably.
It's a real stretch to call the crap that's been released so far an 'internet appliance.' More like network computers.
Let me know when the high-speed, wireless webpads with touch LCD screens and instant-on capabilities show up! These real internet appliances will be rolling out in 2001. Let the games begin!
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Or just use OS X.
That's strange, I thought you were a "be fan."
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
You're right, it is late, I copied your text but meant this as a reply to the parent thread, doh!!
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Pardon me, but it's late, and I'm sick to death of this industry attitude that when someone wins a marketplace battle against Microsoft it's just until the next rev, but when Microsoft wins marketplace battles, it's forever.
See, there was this thing called an ANTI-TRUST LAWSUIT, and Microsoft was verified to be a MONOPOLIST that ILLEGALLY LEVERAGED THAT MONOPOLY and this case will eventually land in the SUPREME COURT where these very smart judges will confirm what every single worker in the tech industry outside of Redmond already knows: GAME OVER.
By the way... please name one other product Microsoft has controlled forever where their product and their primary competitive product is free and easily downloaded on the web.
Thank you, have a nice day.
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Netscape has joined the dark side, and I get chills any time I try to use it.
/. 'michael' don't seem to understand is that there is nearly impossible for Netscape to compete with MSIE. The biggest complaints I hear are that Netscape is bloated and it takes too long to load up. MSIE would have the same problems if they hadn't embedded everything into the OS. You're loading MSIE when you boot up Windows. You have no choice. If Netscape was able to leverage Windows in the same manner with the Gecko engine, we'd all be in heaven.
/. saying how wonderful mozilla is, keep up the great work, blah blah blah. Then it's michael coming off looking like a class-A idiot.
Then why aren't you using Mozilla?
the terrible UI
Moot point. The UI is completely customizable. People will release all manners of UI replacements to choose from.
The problem is also that IE now functions so cleanly and so smoothly that Netscape is hardly a contender anymore.
As you and the clueless
I hate to say it folks, but the battle is drawing to a finish, and Microsoft is emerging as the victor.
Yes, Microsoft is currently winning, after illegaly leveraging their monopoly. Funny, I seem to remember a time when a company called Netscape was winning this war by a much larger margin, and everyone laughed at Microsoft's web browser. In other words, THE BROWSER "WAR" AIN'T EVER GOING TO BE OVER! It's dynamic. Anyone that tells me the browser war is over immediately earns a spot in my 'moron' bucket.
Netscape made some serious blunders, and while they may scoop in a few dollars before they go, they will likely disappear within the next few years.
Yeah right. And Linux will disappear in a few years. And Apache. And [insert open source project here.] Just because YOU might not be using something doesn't mean it has disappeared. Who cares if AOL drops Netscape development? It's too far along now, it will be used.
The software company I work for has stopped bothering to support Netscape because it is so divergent, and also because within the next year or so it will lose market share until it finds itself in the company of Opera and Lynx.
Please say what you really mean: your company is not going to support the HTML standards.
I'm really tired of these stupid flamefest articles on slashdot about Netscape/Mozilla/MSIE. One minute it's
It might help if the editors would just post the news instead of their opinions.
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Yes, I am voting Libertarian this year. It is true that in a LIBERTARIAN SOCIETY, there should be no restrictions on who gives money to whom. However, we are not living in such a society.
Let me offer you a quote that basically sums up the LP feelings on campaign financing:
"Libertarians know that the only real campaign finance reform is to reduce the size and power of government -- which would eliminate the incentive that special interest groups have to bribe politicians via campaign contributions in an effort to gain access, influence, and tax-funded favors," said LP Political Director Ron Crickenberger.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
The problem with the 3rd parties is that they are crackpots. Sorry.
The Republican party used to be a '3rd party.' Are they crackpots, too? Apparantly you don't feel that way simply because they've been a big party for so long.
Brown's [sic] abolish all government idea
Well Browne and the libertarian party do not believe in abolishing ALL government... they simply want to return government to the smallest it can possibly be. How do they propose to do this? Mostly by utilizing capitalism to control things. Privatizing things such as roads, highways, rainforests, etc. If these seem 'wacky' to you, then you might want to read up on the LP ideas, since they are fairly well thought out.
It must seem weird to you to think of the government being as tiny as possible because it's always been as large as possible. The founding fathers' heads would probably explode if they were alive to see how large government has become.
If these parties would only tone down their crackpot ideas to something that a somewhat mainstream person...
By mainstream person, you mean someone that is ignorant, and has not read up on the various issues completely, right? For instance, you said Browne wants to abolish all government. FUD like that is why people tend to stay away from third parties. The other (more important) reason is that the media gives basically ZERO attention to those parties.
It's a vicious cycle. The third parties can't win because they don't get enough coverage. They don't get enough coverage because no one thinks they can win. The two big parties won't change this, because it might mean they would face some outside competition. (Witness the recent debacle keeping Nader and the rest out of the debates.)
Aside from no coverage, they have to overcome the electoral college and soft money, both of which which unfairly promote the two big parties.
For some reason I believe these people are not interested in realpolitik, tho, and would rather wallow in their principles than make a constructive effort to win.
So these people should change what they believe in order to win the election?
How about this instead: (1) Eliminate soft money and PACs. (2) All parties achieving official recognition* as a candidate for office would be given equal time in the media. (3) Reform elections to eliminate the archaic electoral college.
If you do those three things, you will see more voter turnout, you will see a REAL competition for all the public offices, not this two-party sham we've been given for hundreds of years.
-thomas
* Official recognition would be given after the party achieves a certain lofty goal, e.g. collection of two million signatures in favor of recognizing their party for public office consideration.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
You all know this, that's why we're embracing open source.
We are? Funny, I don't care one way or the other if something is open source as long as it works as advertised.
How come so many of you are now eager to jump back into the dark hole that is proprietary software?
Polish?
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Aside from the real-time capabilities, which I presume are meaningless to almost all linux users, basically we've got another BeOS here.
Not even... BeOS is much more advanced in the multimedia aspects, and is fairly close to the 'realtime' definition as used in the context of QNX RtP.
My advice: learn the lesson that Be didn't - open source your OS if you want to survive.
1. As if Be is dead? BeIA will be doing nicely in 2001.
2. As if open sourcing BeOS would have made more money for Be?
Regardless of whether it makes "strategic" sense for the company
Regardless? Regardless?? A company's goal is to make money. Period, end of story.
Without developer mindshare, you're toast.
No, without a killer app, you're toast. Whether or not you need developer mindshare to get that killer app is another thing.
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
From your page, I don't like any of the options this year a whole lot, but Bush will do substantially less harm than Gore.
That's funny, you apparantly think there are only two people running for president, just like the national media... how sad.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
All of those non-Christian socialist nations out there are finally too degenerate to ever be saved (just look at places like France, where they eat snails for Christ's sake!).
If that were true, wouldn't they also be a Christian nation?
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
I find it interesting that Bush supports privacy:
Why? He's a Republican. That means they want the government out of your life (unless you're talking about sexual or religious issues, of course!) In addition, privacy is pro-corporation, because there are lots of companies out there that could be making more money if they could sell their encryption products overseas without as many restrictions. Republicans are pro-business.
(I'm voting libertarian, for what it's worth.)
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."