To cut costs... Sony would presumeably use off-the-shelf parts, meaning they basically need to convert to boring ol' PCM *before* running the signal through the DAC.
Of course, if they are doing that, then we wouldn't be able to hear the supposed "better sound" of DirectStream Digital, since it would be converted into "inferior" PCM in the player anyway. Maybe that's the difference between last year's $2000+ SACD players and the $150 ones mentioned in the article, though. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if Sony is blowing smoke out their ass and ripping off consumers by promising something they're not delivering - that's the American way nowadays.
Any old PC game that generated sound other than simple beeps through the PC speaker was using 1-bit sampling (they just clicked the speaker on and off as fast as the 4.77MHz CPU would allow).
The problem is, Sony's patents on DSD probably are more specific than just 1-bit sampling.
Doesn't it bother you that you can't make a backup, and that if/when the disk wears out or gets damaged you have to buy it again? Or even that Sony is going to use the money they made from you to buy legislators to enact crap like CBDTPA?
Hey, you're forgetting that today is Thursday. Thursday is the day that we don't hate the RIAA and MPAA on Slashdot. So, it's the best day to post stories about Sony.
Were you planning to use all 4,000 of those colors on your wall at the same time? (If the answer's "yes", I'd like to humbly apologize, Sir Elton John. My mother loves your music.)
Heh heh, you had me looking back at the parent to see if it was actually posted by Sir Elton John.
Um, CRTs are analog, and produce actual intensity changes for each color in a pixel. I'm not sure of the mechanism used in LCD screens, but I can tell you with certainty that the 16-bit screen on my Visor Prism isn't using dithering, the pixels are big and noticeable enough that it would be hideously ugly if it was. I don't notice any flicker either.
Hopefully people will be able to compromise and wait until January to see the films.
A one-month boycott by a few geeks (comparatively speaking) isn't going to be a blip on MPAA radar screens. Particularly if all those who participated in the boycott go see everything they missed in January.
If your ideals are really important, don't compromise at all. Miss the movies entirely. Instead, re-read your old copy of Tolkien and buy the paperback novel adaptation of the new Trek film. Don't just postpone your money going to the MPAA companies; cut it off completely.
Here's my official Bad Analogy: if a slave refuses to work until tomorrow, he's still a slave. To be free, he must never work for the master again.
Hey, I was just being a bit flippant about the choice of movie. You are right, that doesn't excuse the poor behaviour, and parents should think seriously about whether their kid is going to be able to sit quietly through the movie before they carry them. Heck, I remember seeing movies when I was eight or nine and being annoyed by younger kids whining.
That said, your bad neighbourhood analogy is right on. The ideal thing would be to get rid of the problem (the local thugs/the annoying kids), but knowing that you'll never eliminate them entirely, you should try to avoid them where possible. Unfortunately it's not always possible, and yes I agree you have the right to complain when it happens to you.
But you can always look on the bright side, you had a free pass. Imagine how you would have felt if you were out seven bucks. Especially if the movie was as bad as it sounds.;)
Or, Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You. Great advice, but neither the person who brings his cellphone into the theater nor the person who beats him up are following it.
I bet that if there were some threat of physical violence, classes and movies would be a whole lot more enjoyable to go to.
Yep, until there's something you are doing that annoys someone, and you get beat up over it.
There are two damned many SUV driving, cell-phone talking, red-zone parking me-monkeys out there that really should just grow up and learn that we are living in a society.
Agreed, but there are also too many wanna-be vigilantes who think the solution is to go around hurting people and destroying property.
Yes, violence is wrong, but I think that the comfort of others is worth the cost of physical violence to the one jerkoff that thinks it's ok to piss off everyone else for their own comfort.
Umm, I might point out that in most people's codes of ethics, two wrongs do not make a right. Besides, if missing a few lines of dialog in a movie is comparable in your mind to a physical beating, your priorities need to be re-examined.
When the solution is as simple as turning off a phone so as to not annoy other people, selfishness is a crime.
Yes, cretins who don't care whether they annoy other people or not are no fun. It is possible, though, that someone simply forgot to turn the ringer off - I hardly think that sort of accidental lapse is deserving of physical punishment.
You deserve to get beaten down for the good of society.
Ah, the good of society. How many people have suffered and died at the hands of totalitarian regimes "for the good of society"?
Look, I'm not apologizing for the assholes whose phones ring during the movie, I'm just pointing out that violence is not an acceptable answer to the situation. If you believe a good beating solves the problem every time, you've been to the movies too much already.
And fags can call each other fags but if you are straight you can't... well that is another topic for PC fags to argue about.
Yes, this social issue was touched on by South Park, during the SHIT episode. Mr. Garrison could say fag because he was gay. Everyone else got bleeped out (except Stan's uncle Jimbo, who was quite shocked when he didn't get bleeped).
Picture this. "Cats & Dogs," a boring little film with talking cats and dogs.
Do you typically go see "boring little films" for entertainment? Anyway, when you go see a G rated movie, you run the risk of annoying kids, and you should factor that risk into your decision of whether to see the movie in a theater or wait for it on video. You might also consider looking for theaters which are still showing it at 9 or 10 on a weeknight, when there will be less kids.
Now, concealed carrying laws being what they are in Canada, I'm left with little redress, illegal or otherwise.
I know (or hope!) that you're exaggerating there, and that you don't think shooting a mother and her three-year-old kid is an appropriate response to you missing a minute or so of a film you think is boring anyway. But the fact that someone would suggest that, even in jest, is a good reason why handguns should not be in everyone's possession.
So, the very least I can do is ask them to leave. I'm not out of line, am I? Obviously, Mother thinks that i am. "She's only three. Get a life!"
I'll agree with you that she is at best an irresponsible parent, and at worst a seething bitch. But I have to agree with her that if you spent money to see Cats and Dogs, you need a life.;)
What is the solution? Better fucking manners, that's what. If your child younger than six wants to watch a movie, there is a wonderful invention: the DVD player.
Absolutely true. I don't plan on taking our kid to a movie until she's at least six or seven. I think I was six when I saw Star Wars, and I remember being somewhat bored by it until around the cantina scene. Young children don't have the two-hour attention span needed to enjoy a movie anyway.
That said, going to a G-rated movie and complaining about the kids is like going to the doctor and complaining about the pain you experience when you punch yourself in the face. The wonderful invention of the DVD player would probably be a better way for you to have experienced the cinematic genius of Cats and Dogs as well. Just think, you wouldn't have been pestered by the kid, and you would have avoided the embarassment of being seen buying your ticket!
Yeah, that's good thinking. Ten seconds of annoying ringtones and assault are such comparable actions. Your enjoyment of the movie is far more important than the physical well-being of others. Right. I hope you don't have kids, I'd hate to think of the punishment you'd find appropriate for some of their misbehavior.
Besides, if you're watching anything that Hollywood has done in the past twenty years, the dialog is so lame and predictable that you already know it before the actors speak, so why would it matter if you miss a line here or there?
Oh well, it just kinda struck me as an odd possibility. And, if it were the case, it would be one of the very few positive messages to humanity in the book of Genesis.
Slashdot Mirror
Just hope and pray that they don't call KDE 4.0 "KDE Warp".
To cut costs ... Sony would presumeably use off-the-shelf parts, meaning they basically need to convert to boring ol' PCM *before* running the signal through the DAC.
Of course, if they are doing that, then we wouldn't be able to hear the supposed "better sound" of DirectStream Digital, since it would be converted into "inferior" PCM in the player anyway. Maybe that's the difference between last year's $2000+ SACD players and the $150 ones mentioned in the article, though. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if Sony is blowing smoke out their ass and ripping off consumers by promising something they're not delivering - that's the American way nowadays.
You forgot about the third kind of blue diamonds, found in Lucky Charms cereal.
Any old PC game that generated sound other than simple beeps through the PC speaker was using 1-bit sampling (they just clicked the speaker on and off as fast as the 4.77MHz CPU would allow).
The problem is, Sony's patents on DSD probably are more specific than just 1-bit sampling.
As has been mentioned before, SACDs don't use PCM, so the digital signal, if you can find it, is totally useless.
You forgot to add "Titanium", "Pro", and "Xtreme".
Doesn't it bother you that you can't make a backup, and that if/when the disk wears out or gets damaged you have to buy it again? Or even that Sony is going to use the money they made from you to buy legislators to enact crap like CBDTPA?
Hey, you're forgetting that today is Thursday. Thursday is the day that we don't hate the RIAA and MPAA on Slashdot. So, it's the best day to post stories about Sony.
I never could get the hang of Thursdays myself.
Ren: Oh, you like the game? Well, how do you like this?! (unzips fly and pees on game)
(Loud Explosion)
Devil: So, you whizzed on the electric fence, eh?
(Background Singers) Don't whiz on the electric fence!
Too bad Sony is evil and we can't patronize them. Oh, wait, this is Thursday isn't it? Never mind.
Were you planning to use all 4,000 of those colors on your wall at the same time? (If the answer's "yes", I'd like to humbly apologize, Sir Elton John. My mother loves your music.)
Heh heh, you had me looking back at the parent to see if it was actually posted by Sir Elton John.
Um, CRTs are analog, and produce actual intensity changes for each color in a pixel. I'm not sure of the mechanism used in LCD screens, but I can tell you with certainty that the 16-bit screen on my Visor Prism isn't using dithering, the pixels are big and noticeable enough that it would be hideously ugly if it was. I don't notice any flicker either.
And explosives. I'm not really sure what advanced aliens would do with fertilizer bombs though.
oh wait - just thought of Britney Spears - how did I forget her.
I don't know, but if you figure it out please tell the rest of us so we can forget her too!
Hello boys and girls
There are only five days left
'Til Yak Shaving Day!
Hopefully people will be able to compromise and wait until January to see the films.
A one-month boycott by a few geeks (comparatively speaking) isn't going to be a blip on MPAA radar screens. Particularly if all those who participated in the boycott go see everything they missed in January.
If your ideals are really important, don't compromise at all. Miss the movies entirely. Instead, re-read your old copy of Tolkien and buy the paperback novel adaptation of the new Trek film. Don't just postpone your money going to the MPAA companies; cut it off completely.
Here's my official Bad Analogy: if a slave refuses to work until tomorrow, he's still a slave. To be free, he must never work for the master again.
Hey, I was just being a bit flippant about the choice of movie. You are right, that doesn't excuse the poor behaviour, and parents should think seriously about whether their kid is going to be able to sit quietly through the movie before they carry them. Heck, I remember seeing movies when I was eight or nine and being annoyed by younger kids whining.
;)
That said, your bad neighbourhood analogy is right on. The ideal thing would be to get rid of the problem (the local thugs/the annoying kids), but knowing that you'll never eliminate them entirely, you should try to avoid them where possible. Unfortunately it's not always possible, and yes I agree you have the right to complain when it happens to you.
But you can always look on the bright side, you had a free pass. Imagine how you would have felt if you were out seven bucks. Especially if the movie was as bad as it sounds.
It's really simple: Don't Be A Jerkoff.
Or, Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You. Great advice, but neither the person who brings his cellphone into the theater nor the person who beats him up are following it.
I bet that if there were some threat of physical violence, classes and movies would be a whole lot more enjoyable to go to.
Yep, until there's something you are doing that annoys someone, and you get beat up over it.
There are two damned many SUV driving, cell-phone talking, red-zone parking me-monkeys out there that really should just grow up and learn that we are living in a society.
Agreed, but there are also too many wanna-be vigilantes who think the solution is to go around hurting people and destroying property.
Yes, violence is wrong, but I think that the comfort of others is worth the cost of physical violence to the one jerkoff that thinks it's ok to piss off everyone else for their own comfort.
Umm, I might point out that in most people's codes of ethics, two wrongs do not make a right. Besides, if missing a few lines of dialog in a movie is comparable in your mind to a physical beating, your priorities need to be re-examined.
When the solution is as simple as turning off a phone so as to not annoy other people, selfishness is a crime.
Yes, cretins who don't care whether they annoy other people or not are no fun. It is possible, though, that someone simply forgot to turn the ringer off - I hardly think that sort of accidental lapse is deserving of physical punishment.
You deserve to get beaten down for the good of society.
Ah, the good of society. How many people have suffered and died at the hands of totalitarian regimes "for the good of society"?
Look, I'm not apologizing for the assholes whose phones ring during the movie, I'm just pointing out that violence is not an acceptable answer to the situation. If you believe a good beating solves the problem every time, you've been to the movies too much already.
Heh heh. I was thinking of Tom Cruise. Goddamn clam.
And fags can call each other fags but if you are straight you can't... well that is another topic for PC fags to argue about.
Yes, this social issue was touched on by South Park, during the SHIT episode. Mr. Garrison could say fag because he was gay. Everyone else got bleeped out (except Stan's uncle Jimbo, who was quite shocked when he didn't get bleeped).
It's perhaps not a good idea to yell "FAAAG" if the play you're seeing is Rent.
Picture this. "Cats & Dogs," a boring little film with talking cats and dogs.
;)
Do you typically go see "boring little films" for entertainment? Anyway, when you go see a G rated movie, you run the risk of annoying kids, and you should factor that risk into your decision of whether to see the movie in a theater or wait for it on video. You might also consider looking for theaters which are still showing it at 9 or 10 on a weeknight, when there will be less kids.
Now, concealed carrying laws being what they are in Canada, I'm left with little redress, illegal or otherwise.
I know (or hope!) that you're exaggerating there, and that you don't think shooting a mother and her three-year-old kid is an appropriate response to you missing a minute or so of a film you think is boring anyway. But the fact that someone would suggest that, even in jest, is a good reason why handguns should not be in everyone's possession.
So, the very least I can do is ask them to leave. I'm not out of line, am I? Obviously, Mother thinks that i am. "She's only three. Get a life!"
I'll agree with you that she is at best an irresponsible parent, and at worst a seething bitch. But I have to agree with her that if you spent money to see Cats and Dogs, you need a life.
What is the solution? Better fucking manners, that's what. If your child younger than six wants to watch a movie, there is a wonderful invention: the DVD player.
Absolutely true. I don't plan on taking our kid to a movie until she's at least six or seven. I think I was six when I saw Star Wars, and I remember being somewhat bored by it until around the cantina scene. Young children don't have the two-hour attention span needed to enjoy a movie anyway.
That said, going to a G-rated movie and complaining about the kids is like going to the doctor and complaining about the pain you experience when you punch yourself in the face. The wonderful invention of the DVD player would probably be a better way for you to have experienced the cinematic genius of Cats and Dogs as well. Just think, you wouldn't have been pestered by the kid, and you would have avoided the embarassment of being seen buying your ticket!
Yeah, that's good thinking. Ten seconds of annoying ringtones and assault are such comparable actions. Your enjoyment of the movie is far more important than the physical well-being of others. Right. I hope you don't have kids, I'd hate to think of the punishment you'd find appropriate for some of their misbehavior.
Besides, if you're watching anything that Hollywood has done in the past twenty years, the dialog is so lame and predictable that you already know it before the actors speak, so why would it matter if you miss a line here or there?
Legislate against idiots, a good proportion of Americans won't be allowed out on the streets :)
You say that like it would be a bad thing....
Oh well, it just kinda struck me as an odd possibility. And, if it were the case, it would be one of the very few positive messages to humanity in the book of Genesis.