768x572 vs 800x600 is a negligable gain and 768x572 vs 1280 x 1028 is a gain but not enough to warrant the additional expenditure by the service providers/cable companies and the like.
Of course, 720p is 1280x720 and 1080i is 1920x1080. Not sure where you're getting 800x600 or 1280x1024.
This is fine for industrial purposes but you still have to provide power to households, whose demand is greatest at night. In order to solve that problem, you either need some way to run power from one side of the planet to another (impractical) or generate the power off-planet and beam it back.
Or, we could use a marvelous piece of technology known as a "battery".
That doesn't seem reasonable when we are talking about 13" TV's. That DOUBLES the price of a cheap TV.
You're right, it would double the price of a 13" TV today, which is exactly why they aren't mandating that ATSC tuners are put in 13" TV for four more years, at which point the tuners will be roughly as expensive as today's NTSC tuners -- insignificant.
Actually, 480p is NOT HD. It's EDTV (Enhanced Definition). 480i is known as SDTV (Standard Definition).
Fox currently broadcasts in 480p, and despite their misleading claims of "High Resolution Digital TV", note that they don't actually ever claim that it's HDTV. Because it's not.
Lets see you try to kill me with a #2 pencil, and then try again with a handgun. You really don't see the difference of degree there? Are you're lecturing everyone else about stupidity?
I don't see why this is such a difficult concept for the pro-gun crowd to accept.
Guns are machines that are designed to propel bullets at a rate of speed that's intended to be damaging to the target. That is they are designed to do.
Cars are machines that are designed to transport people and goods.
Crowbars are designed to pry things apart.
Yes, all three can be used to do damage. But guns are the only machine whose primary function is to do damage to a target. Yes, virtually anything can become a weapon if the user wants it to be. But guns are special in that their primary functionality as a machine is as a weapon.
That may what your smug self-important self wants to believe it means, but that doesn't make it true.
He's simply saying that while this isn't a silver bullet, it's worth doing as part of a larger effort to stop the problem of spam. What's so unreasonable about that? He recognizes and acknowledges this isn't going to stop spam all by itself -- if he hadn't, I'm sure you'll be all over his case because "the moron politicians think this is going to solve the problem".
Every law has unintended consequences, or can be warped outside of its original scope. That's no reason to stop legislating -- it's just evidence that judges need to excercise some judgement in specific cases. Nothing wrong, or unusual, about that.
Seriously, it's time to reconsider your expectations. It's an online music store -- the RIAA would not allow it to exist without some form of DRM. So be thankful for the loophole.
Well, I am thankful for the loophole, but I still don't really understand the need for DRM. It's not like those shiny discs I buy in the store have any DRM on them -- why not just let me bypass Best Buy and physical media and sell me a pre-ripped song online?
Everyone knows how to rip a CD by now -- it's not like CDs are secure in any sense of the word any more. So why exactly is it so scary to sell me a un-DRMed song or album?
I'm not interested in dealing with Kazaa, and I'd ethically like to pay for my music. If iTMS would sell me lossless rips, I'd base my entire music collection around their store. As it is now, I'll pick up EPs or individual songs every so often. But albums I'll always visit Amazon.com or Best Buy for. Better quality and no DRM, for $2-4 more.
Everyone knows that knives are sharp, but no one has tried to sue the makers when they cut themselves
If someone slipped with a knife and cut off their arm, they may have a case that the knife was unreasonably sharp. The pertinent question is whether it meets expectations, and if not, is it far enough beyond expectations that it has become negligent?
Of course the coffee was hot -- that's not the issue. The issue is whether it was so hot as to be beyond reasonable expectation of the damage it could cause, and whether McDonalds knowingly kept it at that unreasonably hot temperature, putting their customers at undue risk.
Given atheism as a starting point morality must be relative; as such, it ends up being based solely upon personal preference.
There are two elements of this that I don't understand:
1. Why do you think this is different than the world we currently live in? 2. Why do you think this is a bad thing?
As to point #1, how many Catholics define their morality exclusively through the doctrines passed down from the Pope? How many in the Episcopalian church accepted the morality that was handed down to them? It seems to me that virtually everyone I talk to does what they think is correct based on their own, personal beliefs, not because there's been some moral code that they've been told to accept. Which brings me to...
Point #2 -- In my opinion, those that are thoughful and introspective about what they see as right or wrong are much better prepared to deal with the intricacies of morality and ethics than are those that blindly accept the moarily of their church.
So, though I don't disagree that the morality of athesists is typically relative, I don't see how it follows that "Atheism unchecked must lead to either anarchy or despotism". The laws in the United States are relative, as evidenced by the constant debate and reconsideration that takes place in our courts, and (for all its faults) our legal system hasn't lead to anarchy or despotism.
"Relative morality" to me means "debated, well considered morality". Which I think is a good thing.
First, THX is a certifiction, not a format. It doesn't compete with Dolby Digital 5.1. There are plenty of DD5.1 mixes that are THX-certified.
Second, you can get a good front-projection system for a couple grand, about as much as a good rear-projection TV goes for, and it can result in a BIG picture. I've got an 8' wide screen, and it consumes as much of my field-of-view as does a normal theater picture.
It's true that DVDs don't have the resolution of theater film, but after a few print generations for ye olde multiplexe and Jimmy Highschool's job of focusing the projector, it's pretty close, if not just as good.
If you've got access to HD films (HBO-HD, Showtime-HD, InDemandHD, HDNet Movies, PPV HD on Dish or DirectTV, etc) you've likely got a picture that's noticably more crisp and well-defined as crisp as that in a multiplex.
You can spend $2K on a speaker setup ($700 subwoofer + 5 x $250 for decent-to-good satellites) that will beat many movie theater sound setups. Plus you can control if it's too loud or too soft. I've got a system that's probably $20K all told (built over the course of the last five years or so) and the HD presentation of Gladiator was hands-down the most impressive cinematic experience I've ever had.
Sure, it's a hobby, and kind of a pricy one -- though no more than many others -- but if movies are your thing, don't sell your home theater short. With some research and some well-placed dollars, you can compete with the best "real" theaters out there.
When O'Reilly publishes a new book, I should buy it, scan in the pages into an electronic format and put it on the internet for the whole world to copy. After all, "copyright doesn't make sense in a world where things are easily and cheaply copiable", and all I did was easily and cheaply copy a book.
Ah, but you're adding an element of morality that was intentionally absent from the original poster's point. That it "doesn't make sense" is more a statement about enforcability and human nature than it is about right/wrong. After all, we could put everyone's salary in a big pot in the middle of town and tell everyone to just take their salary's worth. But clearly that "doesn't make sense" in the same sense that copyright law may not make sense any more.
It's due a combination of a lack of enforcability and the inherent short-term-vision and greed of human nature. No one was saying it's the world we'd like to live in, but it may be the world we're in, regardless.
It was demoed at the Experemental Games Workshop, and two of the guys that help run that got to borrow a copy for a couple days.
It was all in japanese, so none of us could read/understand anything, but it was STUNNING. Its simplicity is amazing (literlly it uses ONE AXIS of ONE STICK), but it still remains a completely compelling experience.
First of all, the art is amazing. The calligraphy is beautiful, the backgrounds are softly moving watercolors, and the inky partical effects add to the feeling of frantic, rhythmic writing. This game is as much a work of art as any I've seen.
Second, the music/raps are totally infectious. We'd regularly have seven or eight people in the room, with one playing, and everyone's heads would be unconsciously bobbing up and down to the rhythm. Add to that a love story (including duets and an anger-rap level when their love is on the rocks), and you have a music game with a surprising amount of variety.
Finally, it just FEELS RIGHT. There's something about the rhythmic nature of the game, the spinning of the letters, the bouncy walk of the character, that just come together to making an amazing experience.
If we ever get this game here in the states, I'm buying it in a heartbeat. You should too.
Jets are complex too. So is the Space Shuttle. Cruise ships. CARS are pretty complex.
Then again, if one of the overhead bin latches get stuck, or my overhead light burns out, or my seatbelt gets stuck, the entire plane or car doesn't instantly explode. The issue isn't complexity, it's fragility.
Software is incomprehensibly fragile -- any single thing can cause a crash, taking the whole system or application down. And even those critical parts of things like airplanes have multiple redundancies, something that's hard to build into software. You can do things like catching exceptions, but you typically can't recover as gracefully as if there was never a problem at all.
The shuttle is actually not a bad analogy -- it's also very fragile due to the stresses it endures. And we've effectively had two crashes in 100 runs. Most software is more stable than that.
Episode II was projected at 1280x1024...Thats not a lot of pixels for a full-size screen
I admittedly haven't seen a full-size theater DLP screening of a movie, but on my 1365x768 D-ILA projector at home, high-definition films appear noticably sharper than virtually all traditional films. And that's on a 9' wide screen that I sit proportionally as close as I do in a traditional theater.
So I'm not convinced that 1280x1024 isn't enough resolution to eliminate pixelation. I definitely don't notice it at home...
Personally, I think that the Firebird database should be renamed the Mozilla database... because, hey, Mozilla's own lawyers (ok, AOL's lawyers, presumably) have obviously decided that nobody will ever be confused between a web browser and a database.
That's not a fair comparison though, because Mozilla is a far more distinctive unique name than Firebird. It's not like they're the first or only thing to be named Firebird, whereas the same can't be said for Mozilla.
Yet if you think of it, the only way those people could have that much money was not from contributions from citizens,but using slush funds and corporate donations. Corporations have no right to free speech!
There have been plenty of self-funded multimillionaire candidates. As much as I agree that this is the right thing, it's going to be a very hard sell to pass a law in which the government says "You may not spend your own money for public speech".
There's no other reason for them not to do rebates at the POS/cash register.
Of course there is! Few people actually go through the process of filling out and sending in the rebate. So they can get customers to think of the price in terms of the rebate, but often don't actually have to "honor" the price.
Personally, I'm pretty religious about sending in my rebates and have only ever had good results. Of course, if everyone did that they'd stop offering them, so for all you folks that don't send in your rebates, thanks!
15-17 year olds can't handle "some sexuality"? You're kidding, right? Minus the violence, my guess is that the sexuality in this movie is going to be so stylized that it would only warrant a PG-13 on its own.
And no, I'm not going to do some research, because it's just patently absurd to "protect" your 15-17 year olds from "some sexuality". I was a 15-17 year old not too long ago, and my guess is that they currently could teach you some things about sexuality you didn't know -- and that's not a shot at you, that's just the facts of what 15-17 year olds think and talk about. The 17 year old's going to college soon, right? At what point is it going to be alright for him/her to see a freakin' boob?
Anway, you shouldn't worry so much, because they're probably well on their way (or well past) "some sexuality" of their own. (nudge nudge wink wink ifyouknowwhatImean)
i hunt and fish, and love the outdoors as much as anyone.
So...you love the outdoors so much you've decided that you'll go out and kill some of it for entertainment? Quite the love affair with nature you've got there.
"Despite the fact that land sinks help remove carbon from the atmosphere, the U.S. continues to emit more carbon than it removes. In 1990, for example, the country released 1.337 billion tons from fossil fuel emissions, making it a net source of between two-thirds and 1 billion tons of carbon per year."
For those of you who hate registering...don't read the article.
The NY Times wrote the article. It's theirs. If you want to read it, they have the right to make you jump through whatever hoops they want.
If we want to demonstrate that we can be responsible with copyrights and that draconic copy-protection methods aren't necessary, perhaps we shouldn't blatantly violate copyrights in the name of convenience, eh?
Slashdot Mirror
This post cites specific sources.
Actually, 480p is NOT HD. It's EDTV (Enhanced Definition). 480i is known as SDTV (Standard Definition).
Fox currently broadcasts in 480p, and despite their misleading claims of "High Resolution Digital TV", note that they don't actually ever claim that it's HDTV. Because it's not.
Lets see you try to kill me with a #2 pencil, and then try again with a handgun. You really don't see the difference of degree there? Are you're lecturing everyone else about stupidity?
I don't see why this is such a difficult concept for the pro-gun crowd to accept.
Guns are machines that are designed to propel bullets at a rate of speed that's intended to be damaging to the target. That is they are designed to do.
Cars are machines that are designed to transport people and goods.
Crowbars are designed to pry things apart.
Yes, all three can be used to do damage. But guns are the only machine whose primary function is to do damage to a target. Yes, virtually anything can become a weapon if the user wants it to be. But guns are special in that their primary functionality as a machine is as a weapon.
That may what your smug self-important self wants to believe it means, but that doesn't make it true.
He's simply saying that while this isn't a silver bullet, it's worth doing as part of a larger effort to stop the problem of spam. What's so unreasonable about that? He recognizes and acknowledges this isn't going to stop spam all by itself -- if he hadn't, I'm sure you'll be all over his case because "the moron politicians think this is going to solve the problem".
Every law has unintended consequences, or can be warped outside of its original scope. That's no reason to stop legislating -- it's just evidence that judges need to excercise some judgement in specific cases. Nothing wrong, or unusual, about that.
Everyone knows how to rip a CD by now -- it's not like CDs are secure in any sense of the word any more. So why exactly is it so scary to sell me a un-DRMed song or album?
I'm not interested in dealing with Kazaa, and I'd ethically like to pay for my music. If iTMS would sell me lossless rips, I'd base my entire music collection around their store. As it is now, I'll pick up EPs or individual songs every so often. But albums I'll always visit Amazon.com or Best Buy for. Better quality and no DRM, for $2-4 more.
Of course the coffee was hot -- that's not the issue. The issue is whether it was so hot as to be beyond reasonable expectation of the damage it could cause, and whether McDonalds knowingly kept it at that unreasonably hot temperature, putting their customers at undue risk.
1. Why do you think this is different than the world we currently live in?
2. Why do you think this is a bad thing?
As to point #1, how many Catholics define their morality exclusively through the doctrines passed down from the Pope? How many in the Episcopalian church accepted the morality that was handed down to them? It seems to me that virtually everyone I talk to does what they think is correct based on their own, personal beliefs, not because there's been some moral code that they've been told to accept. Which brings me to...
Point #2 -- In my opinion, those that are thoughful and introspective about what they see as right or wrong are much better prepared to deal with the intricacies of morality and ethics than are those that blindly accept the moarily of their church.
So, though I don't disagree that the morality of athesists is typically relative, I don't see how it follows that "Atheism unchecked must lead to either anarchy or despotism". The laws in the United States are relative, as evidenced by the constant debate and reconsideration that takes place in our courts, and (for all its faults) our legal system hasn't lead to anarchy or despotism.
"Relative morality" to me means "debated, well considered morality". Which I think is a good thing.
First, THX is a certifiction, not a format. It doesn't compete with Dolby Digital 5.1. There are plenty of DD5.1 mixes that are THX-certified.
Second, you can get a good front-projection system for a couple grand, about as much as a good rear-projection TV goes for, and it can result in a BIG picture. I've got an 8' wide screen, and it consumes as much of my field-of-view as does a normal theater picture.
It's true that DVDs don't have the resolution of theater film, but after a few print generations for ye olde multiplexe and Jimmy Highschool's job of focusing the projector, it's pretty close, if not just as good.
If you've got access to HD films (HBO-HD, Showtime-HD, InDemandHD, HDNet Movies, PPV HD on Dish or DirectTV, etc) you've likely got a picture that's noticably more crisp and well-defined as crisp as that in a multiplex.
You can spend $2K on a speaker setup ($700 subwoofer + 5 x $250 for decent-to-good satellites) that will beat many movie theater sound setups. Plus you can control if it's too loud or too soft. I've got a system that's probably $20K all told (built over the course of the last five years or so) and the HD presentation of Gladiator was hands-down the most impressive cinematic experience I've ever had.
Sure, it's a hobby, and kind of a pricy one -- though no more than many others -- but if movies are your thing, don't sell your home theater short. With some research and some well-placed dollars, you can compete with the best "real" theaters out there.
It's due a combination of a lack of enforcability and the inherent short-term-vision and greed of human nature. No one was saying it's the world we'd like to live in, but it may be the world we're in, regardless.
It was demoed at the Experemental Games Workshop, and two of the guys that help run that got to borrow a copy for a couple days.
It was all in japanese, so none of us could read/understand anything, but it was STUNNING. Its simplicity is amazing (literlly it uses ONE AXIS of ONE STICK), but it still remains a completely compelling experience.
First of all, the art is amazing. The calligraphy is beautiful, the backgrounds are softly moving watercolors, and the inky partical effects add to the feeling of frantic, rhythmic writing. This game is as much a work of art as any I've seen.
Second, the music/raps are totally infectious. We'd regularly have seven or eight people in the room, with one playing, and everyone's heads would be unconsciously bobbing up and down to the rhythm. Add to that a love story (including duets and an anger-rap level when their love is on the rocks), and you have a music game with a surprising amount of variety.
Finally, it just FEELS RIGHT. There's something about the rhythmic nature of the game, the spinning of the letters, the bouncy walk of the character, that just come together to making an amazing experience.
If we ever get this game here in the states, I'm buying it in a heartbeat. You should too.
Software is incomprehensibly fragile -- any single thing can cause a crash, taking the whole system or application down. And even those critical parts of things like airplanes have multiple redundancies, something that's hard to build into software. You can do things like catching exceptions, but you typically can't recover as gracefully as if there was never a problem at all.
The shuttle is actually not a bad analogy -- it's also very fragile due to the stresses it endures. And we've effectively had two crashes in 100 runs. Most software is more stable than that.
So I'm not convinced that 1280x1024 isn't enough resolution to eliminate pixelation. I definitely don't notice it at home...
Personally, I'm pretty religious about sending in my rebates and have only ever had good results. Of course, if everyone did that they'd stop offering them, so for all you folks that don't send in your rebates, thanks!
15-17 year olds can't handle "some sexuality"? You're kidding, right? Minus the violence, my guess is that the sexuality in this movie is going to be so stylized that it would only warrant a PG-13 on its own.
And no, I'm not going to do some research, because it's just patently absurd to "protect" your 15-17 year olds from "some sexuality". I was a 15-17 year old not too long ago, and my guess is that they currently could teach you some things about sexuality you didn't know -- and that's not a shot at you, that's just the facts of what 15-17 year olds think and talk about. The 17 year old's going to college soon, right? At what point is it going to be alright for him/her to see a freakin' boob?
Anway, you shouldn't worry so much, because they're probably well on their way (or well past) "some sexuality" of their own. (nudge nudge wink wink ifyouknowwhatImean)
"Despite the fact that land sinks help remove carbon from the atmosphere, the U.S. continues to emit more carbon than it removes. In 1990, for example, the country released 1.337 billion tons from fossil fuel emissions, making it a net source of between two-thirds and 1 billion tons of carbon per year."
Got a reference for your statement?
For those of you who hate registering...don't read the article.
The NY Times wrote the article. It's theirs. If you want to read it, they have the right to make you jump through whatever hoops they want.
If we want to demonstrate that we can be responsible with copyrights and that draconic copy-protection methods aren't necessary, perhaps we shouldn't blatantly violate copyrights in the name of convenience, eh?