Any code that is added to a piece of dual-licensed code on the non-GPL side is not GPL. Are you asserting that once a piece of code is GPL, the creator can't dual-license that code?
If they ship their code with Linux to their customers, and also ship their code with further modifications with their own OS to other customers, it doesn't mean that the further modifications are covered by the GPL. The only code that is covered by the GPL is the code found in the kernel.
It's Apple-locked, not Quicktime-locked. I have the current Quicktime on my Win7 PC as well as Safari, and it won't play. Can't get it to work in the standalone QT player, nor in VLC.
I tried that. I pulled the.mov link from the source code of the page, and VLC got a 404. They're probably checking the referrer as well. Still streaming fine on my iPod though.
I don't think so. I have Quicktime installed on my Win7 PC, and all I see (even in Safari) is "Apple Special Event, October 23, 2012", whereas on my iPod touch 4th gen I'm already seeing streaming video. Looks like they truly restricted it to Apple hardware.
Anecdotally, I have Charter's DVR and it makes no distinction between program content and commercials recorded from standard broadcasts. I can easily fast forward through ads - it's certainly no "ad-skipper" but the interface is nice and with quick reflexes, you can minimize your exposure to advertising (press play the instant you see program content come back, and it will back up a few seconds and start playing from there - it actually feels very responsive).
The fact that he has spoken at length in multiple speeches against this film, without one word in support of the concept that even hateful speech is Free Speech and protected in America.
Cleartype is shit because fonts are still hinted. Unhinted rendering on high-DPI displays is the future and I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft does away with hinting in Windows 10.
Troll post. The issue isn't with the scaling of the solid-color rectangles, but with graphic elements in webpages (and presumably non-high-DPI-aware apps).
I've read your posts in this thread and can't for the life of me figure out your actual reason for arguing against high-DPI displays. Thank fuck you don't have any say-so in the industry.
Pixel densities where chosen way back in the 90's precisely because they were pretty much good enough. Apple's 'retina' display aims to be the point at which there is literally no further benefit from more pixel density, but 'no further benefit' and 'good enough for virtually every task' are not the same thing.
I suppose that the print world should drop down to 100ppi or so, since that's clearly "good enough" for you (reference for the number: a 17-inch laptop panel at 1600x900 is roughly 109ppi, and if you bump that up to 1680x1050 then you'll be getting rougly 114ppi). Some of us want our screens to look like the printed page, and until then things aren't "good enough" but merely "mediocre".
If you think a "retina" display is "slightly better looking" then you clearly haven't used one at length. I use my iPod touch 4th gen daily for hours and prefer a pixel density where I can't detect anomalies from low pixel count.
Completely off topic, but I think Apple has another issue with their retina display--the retina is used for seeing images, not displaying them. "Retina display" makes as much sense as a tympanic speaker, jumbo shrimp, or Microsoft quality control (zing!).
You're confusing branding with technical specs. Apple merely calls it a "Retina Display" because at an average viewing distance for most people, the pixels are not discernable. Sure, there are people who will still be able to see the pixels. There will also be people who will get two inches from the screen and say "I can see the pixels durr hurr". I have been using an iPod touch 4th gen for quite a while now and think it's sad that the highest resolution display in my house is on a portable device. I can't wait until displays with 200-300 ppi are commonplace.
To be fair, though, even a large-screen 1080p device is a "Retina Display", since most people wouldn't be able to discern individual pixels from across the room. I can't, and I can see many artifacts in video (analog and digital) that most people gloss over.
You're thinking old-school, and thus are part of the problem. The point of high-DPI displays isn't to have more screen real estate or to display more information in the same space, it's to have sharper text and image display at a usable size. Since this is a transition period, images are going to be worse off than text. I'm sick and tired of displays that are approximately 100dpi or so (given the average 17" laptop display). Display technology has lagged behind every other improvement in technology over the last 15 years. Thank God there's finally a push for higher pixel density. The best of both worlds will be when image and video editing apps make use of the higher resolution while still displaying UI at a reasonable size. Ever wonder why a lot of people have run LCD displays at non-native resolutions? Because without resolution independence, high-res displays present UI and text that is way too small for them to read. Proper resolution independence will allow people to run their displays at native, without worrying about being able to read what's on the screen.
As with anything, early adopters tend to get burnt or otherwise are dissatisfied with the performance. Apple does happen to have a leg up here, with their experience on the iPhone/iPod touch 4. The fact that Apple uses integer ratios for their screens (even on the Macbook Pro where the resolution can be adjusted, the backend renders at an integer ratio) is a big plus as it means that what we see in these screenshots won't happen. I may not like some of Apple's business practices, but they completely win when it comes to presentation and aesthetics. Microsoft would do well to learn some lessons from them.
So it's better to have the possibility of executing innocents, than to make it such that the state can deny plea bargains in such cases, and still go after LWOP without any other possibility?
She didn't commit a crime in connection with Facebook. She committed a crime, then talked about it afterwards on FB. This is akin to someone committing a crime, telling a lot of people about it on the phone, and the judge banning her from ever using the phone again. Somehow I don't think that'd fly for too long.
If you work in compressed video, then your end result will be even worse. Digital generational loss can contribute even more to the "abysmal quality of HD content" as you put it. Ideally there would only be one compression applied, and it would be before delivering to the end user. Practically, even with a fully uncompressed workflow, the best you can expect is two - one for distribution to the cable/satellite headends, and one done by the headend to fit the video signal within their bandwidth needs. Often times there may be even more depending on the requirements of program distributors.
Slashdot Mirror
Even "Mario is Missing" is better than 90% of the FPS tripe that's out today.
They're already making money hand over fist.
Any code that is added to a piece of dual-licensed code on the non-GPL side is not GPL. Are you asserting that once a piece of code is GPL, the creator can't dual-license that code?
If they ship their code with Linux to their customers, and also ship their code with further modifications with their own OS to other customers, it doesn't mean that the further modifications are covered by the GPL. The only code that is covered by the GPL is the code found in the kernel.
You meant IE and not yahoo, right?
You meant IE6 and not IE9/10, right?
essentially open but they just tried to block certain applications.
I never had any problems running Netscape or any other browser on any Windows PC during the old browser wars.
Tabs on top.
It's Apple-locked, not Quicktime-locked. I have the current Quicktime on my Win7 PC as well as Safari, and it won't play. Can't get it to work in the standalone QT player, nor in VLC.
I tried that. I pulled the .mov link from the source code of the page, and VLC got a 404. They're probably checking the referrer as well. Still streaming fine on my iPod though.
I don't think so. I have Quicktime installed on my Win7 PC, and all I see (even in Safari) is "Apple Special Event, October 23, 2012", whereas on my iPod touch 4th gen I'm already seeing streaming video. Looks like they truly restricted it to Apple hardware.
Anecdotally, I have Charter's DVR and it makes no distinction between program content and commercials recorded from standard broadcasts. I can easily fast forward through ads - it's certainly no "ad-skipper" but the interface is nice and with quick reflexes, you can minimize your exposure to advertising (press play the instant you see program content come back, and it will back up a few seconds and start playing from there - it actually feels very responsive).
The fact that he has spoken at length in multiple speeches against this film, without one word in support of the concept that even hateful speech is Free Speech and protected in America.
He didn't?
What's incredible is how massively off topic these two posts are.
Cleartype is shit because fonts are still hinted. Unhinted rendering on high-DPI displays is the future and I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft does away with hinting in Windows 10.
Troll post. The issue isn't with the scaling of the solid-color rectangles, but with graphic elements in webpages (and presumably non-high-DPI-aware apps).
I've read your posts in this thread and can't for the life of me figure out your actual reason for arguing against high-DPI displays. Thank fuck you don't have any say-so in the industry.
Pixel densities where chosen way back in the 90's precisely because they were pretty much good enough. Apple's 'retina' display aims to be the point at which there is literally no further benefit from more pixel density, but 'no further benefit' and 'good enough for virtually every task' are not the same thing.
I suppose that the print world should drop down to 100ppi or so, since that's clearly "good enough" for you (reference for the number: a 17-inch laptop panel at 1600x900 is roughly 109ppi, and if you bump that up to 1680x1050 then you'll be getting rougly 114ppi). Some of us want our screens to look like the printed page, and until then things aren't "good enough" but merely "mediocre".
If you think a "retina" display is "slightly better looking" then you clearly haven't used one at length. I use my iPod touch 4th gen daily for hours and prefer a pixel density where I can't detect anomalies from low pixel count.
Sorry but the OS does handling it properly but some websites and third party apps have not been updated to handle a higher DPI mode.
I'm pretty sure the problem rests with such apps and websites, not with the OS or the display.
Completely off topic, but I think Apple has another issue with their retina display--the retina is used for seeing images, not displaying them. "Retina display" makes as much sense as a tympanic speaker, jumbo shrimp, or Microsoft quality control (zing!).
You're confusing branding with technical specs. Apple merely calls it a "Retina Display" because at an average viewing distance for most people, the pixels are not discernable. Sure, there are people who will still be able to see the pixels. There will also be people who will get two inches from the screen and say "I can see the pixels durr hurr". I have been using an iPod touch 4th gen for quite a while now and think it's sad that the highest resolution display in my house is on a portable device. I can't wait until displays with 200-300 ppi are commonplace.
To be fair, though, even a large-screen 1080p device is a "Retina Display", since most people wouldn't be able to discern individual pixels from across the room. I can't, and I can see many artifacts in video (analog and digital) that most people gloss over.
You're thinking old-school, and thus are part of the problem. The point of high-DPI displays isn't to have more screen real estate or to display more information in the same space, it's to have sharper text and image display at a usable size. Since this is a transition period, images are going to be worse off than text. I'm sick and tired of displays that are approximately 100dpi or so (given the average 17" laptop display). Display technology has lagged behind every other improvement in technology over the last 15 years. Thank God there's finally a push for higher pixel density. The best of both worlds will be when image and video editing apps make use of the higher resolution while still displaying UI at a reasonable size. Ever wonder why a lot of people have run LCD displays at non-native resolutions? Because without resolution independence, high-res displays present UI and text that is way too small for them to read. Proper resolution independence will allow people to run their displays at native, without worrying about being able to read what's on the screen.
As with anything, early adopters tend to get burnt or otherwise are dissatisfied with the performance. Apple does happen to have a leg up here, with their experience on the iPhone/iPod touch 4. The fact that Apple uses integer ratios for their screens (even on the Macbook Pro where the resolution can be adjusted, the backend renders at an integer ratio) is a big plus as it means that what we see in these screenshots won't happen. I may not like some of Apple's business practices, but they completely win when it comes to presentation and aesthetics. Microsoft would do well to learn some lessons from them.
So it's better to have the possibility of executing innocents, than to make it such that the state can deny plea bargains in such cases, and still go after LWOP without any other possibility?
She didn't commit a crime in connection with Facebook. She committed a crime, then talked about it afterwards on FB. This is akin to someone committing a crime, telling a lot of people about it on the phone, and the judge banning her from ever using the phone again. Somehow I don't think that'd fly for too long.
If you work in compressed video, then your end result will be even worse. Digital generational loss can contribute even more to the "abysmal quality of HD content" as you put it. Ideally there would only be one compression applied, and it would be before delivering to the end user. Practically, even with a fully uncompressed workflow, the best you can expect is two - one for distribution to the cable/satellite headends, and one done by the headend to fit the video signal within their bandwidth needs. Often times there may be even more depending on the requirements of program distributors.
1080p25 (30) or 1080p50 (60)?
Why do you care?