Yes I read his response. It's really not much of a response, frankly. In fack he really doesn't counter even a single point. It's kind of funny actually, since he practices exactly the kind of issue-side-stepping and weasling that he loves to accuse liberals and intellectuals of.
Whatever.
I actually can't decide to what extent he is actually sincere (but moronic), and to what extent he's just a self-conscious troll.
And yet if they sold all the shares now they'd be making over 400% in about a year. This looks to me like they were in on the whole pump-and-dump scheme. See who's left holding the bag after these guys unload their stock -- that's the sucker.
What are you even talking about? What the hell does "equal" mean in this context? And how exactly does media consolidation lead to "diversity"? And Trent Lott is a liberal?
I'd be happy to see a coherent argument against this, but what you said doesn't even make any sense!
I'm sorry for this as it's completely off-topic, and I don't mean to make light of a serious issue.
However, I just have to ask if I'm the only one who when seeing "Black Bart" immediately thought of those "Air Bart" shirts that were around in the early 90's with a black Bart Simpson on them?
I looked for a picture on the net somewhere, but it seems that FOX's lawyers have been pretty dilligent...
but not that you can afford. Here's who makes them. Expect to pay over a $100,000. Note that only the first 2 have full 1080P resolution, not that you'd ever see the difference, unless you've got a bigger than 25 foot screen at home.
It is in fact 720P/30. It dupes each frame on the output to give you standard 720P/60 (actually 59.94) on the output, or it can format-convert it to 1080i.
Upconverted footage from the Panasonic DVX100 makes much nicer HD.
As someone who is on both sides of the divide:
on
First HDTV Camcorder
·
· Score: 1
The "resolution" of film (talking motion picture here, not still), is not directly comparable to digital, but assuming you're going the DI (digital intermediate) route as more and more people are, the limits are really on the scanning end. Most people for economic reasons still scan at 2K, though with the Spirit 2 I expect more will be going 4K. Some do 8K for effects work. Digital is almost at 2K -- with higher res products on the distant horizon (Dalsa, Lockheed and the like). The problem (besides making the damn things work!), is data management. Right now there's no way to put a 4TB RAID on your shoulder.
Anyway, the real problems with digital for most people, practically speaking, aren't with resolution anyway. They're shooting for broadcast which is HD res max by definition. The problems are latitude, too much depth of field (from 2/3 in. imagers), and a host of intangible things that keep people looking for that "film look".
I shoot a lot of HD now, so I'm not dismissive of it at all. Someday I expect it to surpass film, but in the mean time film still has some life in it -- and probably will for another generation or so. BTW -- have you checked out the advances that film is making? Try shooting 5218 some time -- 500ASA, very low grain, extended shoulder, nice colors, etc. Film is not a stationary target.
I saw a working Blu-Ray prototype almost exactly one year ago at last year's NAB. OK, it's a different format, but it uses a blue laser, and has pretty much the same storage capacity.
The thing is that you can't judge these things based on the specs alone.
A few differences are that the phosphors on a TV (HD or otherwise) are different than those on a computer monitor. They will display the colors of a video image properly (if it's a decent monitor), plus the decay rate is slower so that a TV monitor at 60 Hz is watchable, whereas a computer monitor at 60 Hz will give you a headache fast.
And yes, you do pay for size as well.
It's funny, but I deal with production-grade (as in film/video production) monitors a lot, and I'm so used to the prices that I find it hard to believe that people find a $300 box expensive. We've got little 6in. LCD HD monitors for $4,000, and a big CRT (like in the 30" range) is easily $30,000.
GNU CHESS GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Copyright (C) 1986,1987 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license, but changing it is not allowed.
The license agreements of most software companies keep you at the mercy of those companies. By contrast, our general public license is intended to give everyone the right to share GNU Chess. To make sure that you get the rights we want you to have, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. Hence this license agreement.
He was referring to signed documents, not encrypted documents. With a digital signature you aren't trying to prevent people from reading a doc, but guaranteeing the authenticity of the document. (I'm not saying what he says actually works, just clarifying this point...)
Slashdot Mirror
Yes I read his response. It's really not much of a response, frankly. In fack he really doesn't counter even a single point. It's kind of funny actually, since he practices exactly the kind of issue-side-stepping and weasling that he loves to accuse liberals and intellectuals of.
Whatever.
I actually can't decide to what extent he is actually sincere (but moronic), and to what extent he's just a self-conscious troll.
Well since you asked...
e s-reality.html
This is kind of old, but pretty well documented:
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/limbaugh-debat
That's a good one -- you should make that your sig.
I almost had a serious reply ready, but I realized in the nick of time that IHBT.
the funny thing isn't their uptime -- it's that they switched from SCO Unix to Linux.
We may still be missing some. Also, there's plenty of X-Windows based clients that you could install as well.
It works fine on my desktop machine, since the drawer expands onto the second monitor.
On my iBook, on the other hand, I'm left with having to have the window much smaller than I would like to leave room for the drawer.
And yet if they sold all the shares now they'd be making over 400% in about a year. This looks to me like they were in on the whole pump-and-dump scheme. See who's left holding the bag after these guys unload their stock -- that's the sucker.
What are you even talking about? What the hell does "equal" mean in this context? And how exactly does media consolidation lead to "diversity"? And Trent Lott is a liberal?
I'd be happy to see a coherent argument against this, but what you said doesn't even make any sense!
I'm sorry for this as it's completely off-topic, and I don't mean to make light of a serious issue.
However, I just have to ask if I'm the only one who when seeing "Black Bart" immediately thought of those "Air Bart" shirts that were around in the early 90's with a black Bart Simpson on them?
I looked for a picture on the net somewhere, but it seems that FOX's lawyers have been pretty dilligent...
I think it was only in '94 or so. Otherwise I would have had a 1600.
but not that you can afford. Here's who makes them. Expect to pay over a $100,000. Note that only the first 2 have full 1080P resolution, not that you'd ever see the difference, unless you've got a bigger than 25 foot screen at home.
They're not talking about pixels here.
It is in fact 720P/30. It dupes each frame on the output to give you standard 720P/60 (actually 59.94) on the output, or it can format-convert it to 1080i.
and unfortunately it looks like crap.
Upconverted footage from the Panasonic DVX100 makes much nicer HD.
The "resolution" of film (talking motion picture here, not still), is not directly comparable to digital, but assuming you're going the DI (digital intermediate) route as more and more people are, the limits are really on the scanning end. Most people for economic reasons still scan at 2K, though with the Spirit 2 I expect more will be going 4K. Some do 8K for effects work. Digital is almost at 2K -- with higher res products on the distant horizon (Dalsa, Lockheed and the like). The problem (besides making the damn things work!), is data management. Right now there's no way to put a 4TB RAID on your shoulder.
Anyway, the real problems with digital for most people, practically speaking, aren't with resolution anyway. They're shooting for broadcast which is HD res max by definition. The problems are latitude, too much depth of field (from 2/3 in. imagers), and a host of intangible things that keep people looking for that "film look".
I shoot a lot of HD now, so I'm not dismissive of it at all. Someday I expect it to surpass film, but in the mean time film still has some life in it -- and probably will for another generation or so. BTW -- have you checked out the advances that film is making? Try shooting 5218 some time -- 500ASA, very low grain, extended shoulder, nice colors, etc. Film is not a stationary target.
that (like almost anything new shown at NAB), it isn't being released to the public yet -- not for at least another 10 months or so.
you left out:
4) ?
5) Profit!
I saw a working Blu-Ray prototype almost exactly one year ago at last year's NAB. OK, it's a different format, but it uses a blue laser, and has pretty much the same storage capacity.
The thing is that you can't judge these things based on the specs alone.
A few differences are that the phosphors on a TV (HD or otherwise) are different than those on a computer monitor. They will display the colors of a video image properly (if it's a decent monitor), plus the decay rate is slower so that a TV monitor at 60 Hz is watchable, whereas a computer monitor at 60 Hz will give you a headache fast.
And yes, you do pay for size as well.
It's funny, but I deal with production-grade (as in film/video production) monitors a lot, and I'm so used to the prices that I find it hard to believe that people find a $300 box expensive. We've got little 6in. LCD HD monitors for $4,000, and a big CRT (like in the 30" range) is easily $30,000.
So that's what he meant by "Weeks not months"!
in: Chess/Contents/Resources/COPYING
GNU CHESS GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Copyright (C) 1986,1987 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license, but changing it is not allowed.
The license agreements of most software companies keep you at the mercy of those companies. By contrast, our general public license is intended to give everyone the right to share GNU Chess. To make sure that you get the rights we want you to have, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. Hence this license agreement.
etc.
You need at least a 50" Plasma these days!
He was referring to signed documents, not encrypted documents. With a digital signature you aren't trying to prevent people from reading a doc, but guaranteeing the authenticity of the document. (I'm not saying what he says actually works, just clarifying this point...)
First of all, let me say that I don't play any of these games (I prefer to waste my time reading slashdot and the like *ahem*), but that said....
I think what it means is "consistent with the rules/laws of the imaginary universe". If things aren't consistent, the game loses its appeal. (I guess)
Nick Cave edition iPod (plays music, but you hear only silence)
I think you meant John Cage.
By the way, here's his signature, for free no less.