The person who answers the phone at N places said "I can't let you speak to him" and one guy said "I don't know" in a fancy way.
I did more "investigation" by opening/. this morning.
The things I read between the lines of TFA were:
1. this story is biased towards the rants of the projectionists (rightly or wrongly)
2. the moviegoer can't tell without comparing, even if the difference is huge, and almost no moviegoer has a reason to try comparing; everyone forgets how we put up with 4:3 and NTSC for 60 years without feeling shortchanged; our issues with quality are generally with the idea that someone somewhere is getting better quality for the same price, not that we have a clue what is or isn't appropriate de facto quality
3. the reporter didn't hound anyone or camp out in the lobby or sneak in anywhere or pore through secret documents to dig up the dirt, he just made a few phone calls, talked face-to-face with those who likely brought him the story in the first place, and eye-witnessed what anyone on the street could have seen just by looking.
4. the corporate types who actually do have insight into the problem don't seem to have any insight into the problem, hence maybe that one guy is just more out of the loop than he thinks. it happens. half of my chain of command wouldn't know what my main job function is, and i'm not an invisible presence around here.
5. the problem is a snafu in the specification of an item that was demanded heavily (did you see how much money Avatar made? as shitty a movie as it was? all attributed to 3D) and rushed to production. fixing the problem in the field is exacerbated by another problem that has intense corporate policy interest (piracy of digital content); the problem isn't affecting bottom line yet, so it won't get fixed soon.
2) use "always" more carefully and you won't blame the victim here
3) yay. i want to pay an extra $300 for something that duplicates what's already attached to the machine. that's kind of the opposite of an "attractor".
I read that story earlier. It doesn't sound so much like investigative journalism as it does like local projectionists raised a shitty on a reporter's answering machine and the reporter recast the rant in story form, plus a couple of phone calls.
Investigative journalism would have got more out of Sony and the theater owners before going to press.
And yes, Sony has been screwing the pooch on all fronts (audio gear, online security, production, projection) for the past several years. Their corporate culture has become one of doing things cheap. They may no longer have any idea what "quality" means beyond the narrow ISO 9000 version of "every unit matches the spec".
An infant on a [bottle] is completely vulnerable to whatever substances the [manufacturer] decides to [include], whatever schedule the mother decides to feed the baby on, whatever position and environment the mother decides is appropriate. An infant on a [bottle] has no way to express disagreement about any of these issues except to cry, which sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. An infant on a [bottle] is a [...] locked-in brand dependent consumer.
Now it's correct.
Since 99% of teat-sucking babies are getting the best thing for them without any expenditure on their part, it's inappropriate to compare their situation to a perponderance of consumers being denied the ability to trade money for what is good for them.
Glossy screens look futuramic because of the glare. They also give a significantly crisper picture. Side-by-side with matte screens, the glossy screens pop.
So the glare works ironically, while the pop sells you what you desire.
2) when i go into the store for raspberries, i often come out with raspberries. when i go to the store for matte screens, if i come out with a glossy screen (and yes this did happen last time i shopped for a foldable) it's because "yuck! all the ones with matte screens are 18 months out of date". i ended up with one that pretty much only had the screen issue as a flaw, and came at a sick price ($650 for what at the time should have been $1k worth of kit).
3) once the marketing cost function falls into the wrong attractor it takes a rather large bump to sinter it into another, and in a low-energy process like mature-product marketing there isn't much chance of large bumps. the impressiong of continuous change comes from "game changer" product improvements that may not be in the part of the computer you've been wanting improved. glossy screens and blue LEDs on random parts could be here for a long while.
And infant on a teat is getting an all-natural, perfectly balanced product, for free, that comes in a reusable and all but universally appealing container.
So maybe you should find another pejorative metaphor for "consumerism".
1050 was the shite format. It fit into no rational schema for sizing monitors and it was inadequate for native HDTV resolution. I'm certain it's because LCD, PC makers, and TV makers were colluding to keep the price of US-bound HDTVs high. The moment computers got 1080 height, they would take over from TVs as entertainment devices.
1080, on the other hand, is native HDTV, meaning I can do my computing at a perfectly useful resolution, and I can get pixel-perfect TV playback, with no letterboxing.
Just the time needed to load rendering library code as you browse around the web slows you down. A bigger cache only helps after the first time you load it; the first time is still bogged down in disk transfer. SSD would help, but then something else would become the tentpole.
It's successful if you do it to mock the people who call you that, and they get it.
If you do it because you think people in a far-off land who called themselves that are pretty cool, and the people who don't understand where it comes from think you're doing it because you think stealing stuff is cool, then you have begged for the adverse publicity and antipathetic attitudes of the general population around you.
If the mobo makers decide to adobt Thunderbolt, they will, and it will instantly become a volume commodity, and it will start showing up on those low-end mobos.
They've shown a distinct inability to embargo Cool Stuff to keep their prices up.
Slashdot Mirror
When that happens, leave the movie, go to the manager's office, pound on the door, and raise a stink.
The person who answers the phone at N places said "I can't let you speak to him" and one guy said "I don't know" in a fancy way.
I did more "investigation" by opening /. this morning.
The things I read between the lines of TFA were:
1. this story is biased towards the rants of the projectionists (rightly or wrongly)
2. the moviegoer can't tell without comparing, even if the difference is huge, and almost no moviegoer has a reason to try comparing; everyone forgets how we put up with 4:3 and NTSC for 60 years without feeling shortchanged; our issues with quality are generally with the idea that someone somewhere is getting better quality for the same price, not that we have a clue what is or isn't appropriate de facto quality
3. the reporter didn't hound anyone or camp out in the lobby or sneak in anywhere or pore through secret documents to dig up the dirt, he just made a few phone calls, talked face-to-face with those who likely brought him the story in the first place, and eye-witnessed what anyone on the street could have seen just by looking.
4. the corporate types who actually do have insight into the problem don't seem to have any insight into the problem, hence maybe that one guy is just more out of the loop than he thinks. it happens. half of my chain of command wouldn't know what my main job function is, and i'm not an invisible presence around here.
5. the problem is a snafu in the specification of an item that was demanded heavily (did you see how much money Avatar made? as shitty a movie as it was? all attributed to 3D) and rushed to production. fixing the problem in the field is exacerbated by another problem that has intense corporate policy interest (piracy of digital content); the problem isn't affecting bottom line yet, so it won't get fixed soon.
2) use "always" more carefully and you won't blame the victim here
3) yay. i want to pay an extra $300 for something that duplicates what's already attached to the machine. that's kind of the opposite of an "attractor".
If you were Viet Namese you could be nam-pla.
Come to think of it, being a German in MOH:AA was an advantage in certain maps.
You are wrong.
China has no reason to war with us.
We are handing over our economy without firing a shot.
If we were friendly with everyone but the Chinese, you can bet those OPFORs would be yellow-skinned.
I read that story earlier. It doesn't sound so much like investigative journalism as it does like local projectionists raised a shitty on a reporter's answering machine and the reporter recast the rant in story form, plus a couple of phone calls.
Investigative journalism would have got more out of Sony and the theater owners before going to press.
And yes, Sony has been screwing the pooch on all fronts (audio gear, online security, production, projection) for the past several years. Their corporate culture has become one of doing things cheap. They may no longer have any idea what "quality" means beyond the narrow ISO 9000 version of "every unit matches the spec".
Babies have the say in a lot of cases. Some are bottle-fed because they won't breast-feed, and vice-versa.
And my support for breastfeeding is mostly because I like breasts and think they should be encouraged.
An infant on a [bottle] is completely vulnerable to whatever substances the [manufacturer] decides to [include], whatever schedule the mother decides to feed the baby on, whatever position and environment the mother decides is appropriate. An infant on a [bottle] has no way to express disagreement about any of these issues except to cry, which sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. An infant on a [bottle] is a [...] locked-in brand dependent consumer.
Now it's correct.
Since 99% of teat-sucking babies are getting the best thing for them without any expenditure on their part, it's inappropriate to compare their situation to a perponderance of consumers being denied the ability to trade money for what is good for them.
Glossy screens look futuramic because of the glare. They also give a significantly crisper picture. Side-by-side with matte screens, the glossy screens pop.
So the glare works ironically, while the pop sells you what you desire.
1) and /. readers do! FTW!
2) when i go into the store for raspberries, i often come out with raspberries. when i go to the store for matte screens, if i come out with a glossy screen (and yes this did happen last time i shopped for a foldable) it's because "yuck! all the ones with matte screens are 18 months out of date". i ended up with one that pretty much only had the screen issue as a flaw, and came at a sick price ($650 for what at the time should have been $1k worth of kit).
3) once the marketing cost function falls into the wrong attractor it takes a rather large bump to sinter it into another, and in a low-energy process like mature-product marketing there isn't much chance of large bumps. the impressiong of continuous change comes from "game changer" product improvements that may not be in the part of the computer you've been wanting improved. glossy screens and blue LEDs on random parts could be here for a long while.
And infant on a teat is getting an all-natural, perfectly balanced product, for free, that comes in a reusable and all but universally appealing container.
So maybe you should find another pejorative metaphor for "consumerism".
You're wrong here.
1050 was the shite format. It fit into no rational schema for sizing monitors and it was inadequate for native HDTV resolution. I'm certain it's because LCD, PC makers, and TV makers were colluding to keep the price of US-bound HDTVs high. The moment computers got 1080 height, they would take over from TVs as entertainment devices.
1080, on the other hand, is native HDTV, meaning I can do my computing at a perfectly useful resolution, and I can get pixel-perfect TV playback, with no letterboxing.
Anything that removes latency is useful.
Just the time needed to load rendering library code as you browse around the web slows you down. A bigger cache only helps after the first time you load it; the first time is still bogged down in disk transfer. SSD would help, but then something else would become the tentpole.
There's also the fact that amplitude is not constant across the spectrum of a pulsed carrier. So there's still a finite bandwidth.
I'm pretty surprised they got 300 frequencies above the noise floor.
As this is a fairly large tube, they should all fit just fine, especially if the go in brain-first.
But why, you should have asked, is the BBC giving figures in units of LoCs?
They don't have books in Blighty?
The word you are looking for is "WHOOSH!".
HTH
he's a racist.
only racists use that argument.
It's successful if you do it to mock the people who call you that, and they get it.
If you do it because you think people in a far-off land who called themselves that are pretty cool, and the people who don't understand where it comes from think you're doing it because you think stealing stuff is cool, then you have begged for the adverse publicity and antipathetic attitudes of the general population around you.
Racists don't get to define the semantics of their demonization.
Here's a hint for people who are innocuous: don't call yourselves "pirates."
If the mobo makers decide to adobt Thunderbolt, they will, and it will instantly become a volume commodity, and it will start showing up on those low-end mobos.
They've shown a distinct inability to embargo Cool Stuff to keep their prices up.
CPU-bound USB 3.0
Um, even though the DMA is on the CPU chip, it's not as though the core is being used to transfer all the data.
And unless you have dual-port RAM, putting the DMA in a peripheral chip doesn't buy you anything, bus-wise.