Like you I get headaches from looking at CRT screens. I could never stand refresh rates below 80 Hz. The problem is I need a lot of screen real estate and usually the lower end monitors can only do higher resolution at lower refresh rates. Interlace mode is even worse.
So when LED came out I rejoiced. It is a God send for me. I never needed glasses until I was diagnosed with astigmatism. I work exclusively with computers and blame CRT monitors until now.
So while I am bothered by the flicker on LED monitors, I am also thankful for it being a huge improvement over its predecessor.
Sure, gameplay is very important but you have to admit - games with better graphics just sell better, although this does directly translate to a better game overall. In real world analogy, males (the target market) would most likely go for the more attractive female (e.g. a sexy blonde) than an average-looking one. This is also the reason why you see so many busty, sexy protagonists in games (e.g. Lara Croft). In the business perspective, it just makes sense to come up with better hardware to end up with better looking games.
Just a guess since I do not use WindowBlinds but it probably uses 2D sprites when Vista Aero runs in 3D mode and uses real 3D filters to render the effects. Also Vista Aero is more than just the skin. It also uses translucencies and blurring effects and has that 3D window switcher.
English does not have to be my native language to understand what that line meant, and for me it was clear that the writer was trying to convey that Mac has been offering for many years what Vista is just offering now. Maybe it was not worded "properly" but that's just being anal.
If you read carefully, the parent poster is implying that he is living in the U.S. in an effort to point out that developed nations can also benefit from the technique and not just "developing nations" as the story suggests, which I agree with. I am not familiar with other purifying methods but the article seems to suggests that this is the "cheap" alternative which may be a good enough reason to switch if it provides comparable results to other methods.
* Fixed: 312804 - No longer shows loading-image.gif when loading images
I don't know what your "sources" are since you did not indicate it but I just tested this part, and it still does.
..people will find a way around it. They will NEVER make any media copy-proof. It has been cracked again and again and again. I am not worried.
While I agree that people will find a way around it, the article isn't about making media copy-proof, but rather, making it illegal to convert analog videos into digital format.
From the article: "Under a new proposed Analog Hole bill, it will be illegal to make anything capable of digitizing video unless it either has all its outputs approved by the Hollywood studios, or is closed-source, proprietary and tamper-resistant."
I did RTFA but does this mean that we can no longer digitize our own videos? Maybe I am being mislead by the article... what did I miss?
I had this idea once that the only way I can make sure my important document withstands the test of time is to make multiple copies and distribute the copies across different locations (i.e. home, office, gf's house, etc). This is the same reason why I make multiple copies of an important document and post it in multiple locations over the internet.
Making a book available online is just about the same thing -- it only serves to preserve it, and what better way to do so other than making something like Google, with its many layers of protection against data corruption, its backup? It's the best thing to preserve your most treasured works other than spreading it via P2P.
How many times have I tried to open an old link, only to discover that it is already gone or most of the content has already changed? Well, good thing there's Google cache and the Wayback Machine as form of "backup".
Though I personally believe what Google are doing is not ethically/morally wrong, they are most probably 'breaking' our unjust (injust?) copyright laws. The only reason they are 'getting away' with it is because they are the most powerful domain on the net. No-one dares mess with Google.
About 18% of the books held by the libraries working with Google were printed prior to 1923 and are therefore in the public domain
From what I gather, these books printed prior to 1923 are considered public domain and hence, no longer in the scope of copyright laws. Lawsuits are still bad press for Google as is for any publicly-listed company, and I seriously doubt no-one would "dare mess" with Google simply because they are "the most powerful domain" on the net. If anything else, Google has money and can definitely pay large sums of money to settle any lawsuits hurled against them, which makes it a good move as long as you are at the side of the law. Take a look at guys like RIAA and Microsoft -- they may be powerful both as an entity and economically-speaking, however, it does not render them safe from lawsuits.
A law suit against Google is very bad publicity, and they could subtly drop your page rank and you'd never notice until the visitors stopped coming.. or even remove you completely.
Google drops your page rank or removes you? Fine, guess I'll just fire another lawsuit against them. I'm sure there's a law being broken somewhere for this.
Nonsense. Books are far less fragile than any of this digital crap. Drop a book, and nothing bad happens to it (unless you drop it into water). Drop a hard drive, and it's dead. All in all, it is more likely that digitally stored information will be lost forever than a book.
At first glance I thought this sounded trollish -- like, who in the right mind will drop a hard drive? But then I realized this post has a point.
I for one, can recount the agony I had experienced years back when all of a sudden my harddrive failed and I lost many important data and documents. I rarely write anything on paper nowadays, and most of my important documents are first "written" into files, which I would later print should I ever need it in hardcopy format.
I know the solution is simply to regularly back up your important files, but back then I did not have the luxury of doing so. And even now, I feel that backing up data on my regular computer is cumbersome, and even with the existing software solutions that can automate the backup procedure.
Slashdot Mirror
Really, I have to wonder what Microsoft is thinking these days.
I'd like to think they are aiming for a jack-of-all trades solution, a unified OS for both desktop and mobile.
Why carry two devices (a laptop and a smartphone) when you can accomplish everything with one (smartphone/laptop hybrid)?
Needs more screenshots for the non-Apple / non-Yosemite crowd.
Is there a way to simulate this without spending $400? Serious question.
Like you I get headaches from looking at CRT screens. I could never stand refresh rates below 80 Hz. The problem is I need a lot of screen real estate and usually the lower end monitors can only do higher resolution at lower refresh rates. Interlace mode is even worse.
So when LED came out I rejoiced. It is a God send for me. I never needed glasses until I was diagnosed with astigmatism. I work exclusively with computers and blame CRT monitors until now.
So while I am bothered by the flicker on LED monitors, I am also thankful for it being a huge improvement over its predecessor.
Only one way to find out ...
Sure, gameplay is very important but you have to admit - games with better graphics just sell better, although this does directly translate to a better game overall. In real world analogy, males (the target market) would most likely go for the more attractive female (e.g. a sexy blonde) than an average-looking one. This is also the reason why you see so many busty, sexy protagonists in games (e.g. Lara Croft). In the business perspective, it just makes sense to come up with better hardware to end up with better looking games.
If your management role does not permit you to do that you can always move him or her to another department / team.
Just a guess since I do not use WindowBlinds but it probably uses 2D sprites when Vista Aero runs in 3D mode and uses real 3D filters to render the effects. Also Vista Aero is more than just the skin. It also uses translucencies and blurring effects and has that 3D window switcher.
English does not have to be my native language to understand what that line meant, and for me it was clear that the writer was trying to convey that Mac has been offering for many years what Vista is just offering now. Maybe it was not worded "properly" but that's just being anal.
... from selling those laptops.
If you read carefully, the parent poster is implying that he is living in the U.S. in an effort to point out that developed nations can also benefit from the technique and not just "developing nations" as the story suggests, which I agree with. I am not familiar with other purifying methods but the article seems to suggests that this is the "cheap" alternative which may be a good enough reason to switch if it provides comparable results to other methods.
Forgive me for my ignorance but what is /played a website or something? URL please.
... that had plans to acquire Opera?!
Link to the sound of a tree falling in the forest when there is nobody around to hear it (taken from http://www.getodd.com/stuf/treefall.html)
* Fixed: 312804 - No longer shows loading-image.gif when loading images I don't know what your "sources" are since you did not indicate it but I just tested this part, and it still does.
..people will find a way around it. They will NEVER make any media copy-proof. It has been cracked again and again and again. I am not worried.
While I agree that people will find a way around it, the article isn't about making media copy-proof, but rather, making it illegal to convert analog videos into digital format.
From the article: "Under a new proposed Analog Hole bill, it will be illegal to make anything capable of digitizing video unless it either has all its outputs approved by the Hollywood studios, or is closed-source, proprietary and tamper-resistant."
... what did I miss?
I did RTFA but does this mean that we can no longer digitize our own videos? Maybe I am being mislead by the article
I had this idea once that the only way I can make sure my important document withstands the test of time is to make multiple copies and distribute the copies across different locations (i.e. home, office, gf's house, etc). This is the same reason why I make multiple copies of an important document and post it in multiple locations over the internet.
Making a book available online is just about the same thing -- it only serves to preserve it, and what better way to do so other than making something like Google, with its many layers of protection against data corruption, its backup? It's the best thing to preserve your most treasured works other than spreading it via P2P.
How many times have I tried to open an old link, only to discover that it is already gone or most of the content has already changed? Well, good thing there's Google cache and the Wayback Machine as form of "backup".
Though I personally believe what Google are doing is not ethically/morally wrong, they are most probably 'breaking' our unjust (injust?) copyright laws. The only reason they are 'getting away' with it is because they are the most powerful domain on the net. No-one dares mess with Google.
About 18% of the books held by the libraries working with Google were printed prior to 1923 and are therefore in the public domain
From what I gather, these books printed prior to 1923 are considered public domain and hence, no longer in the scope of copyright laws. Lawsuits are still bad press for Google as is for any publicly-listed company, and I seriously doubt no-one would "dare mess" with Google simply because they are "the most powerful domain" on the net. If anything else, Google has money and can definitely pay large sums of money to settle any lawsuits hurled against them, which makes it a good move as long as you are at the side of the law. Take a look at guys like RIAA and Microsoft -- they may be powerful both as an entity and economically-speaking, however, it does not render them safe from lawsuits.
A law suit against Google is very bad publicity, and they could subtly drop your page rank and you'd never notice until the visitors stopped coming.. or even remove you completely.
Google drops your page rank or removes you? Fine, guess I'll just fire another lawsuit against them. I'm sure there's a law being broken somewhere for this.
Nonsense. Books are far less fragile than any of this digital crap. Drop a book, and nothing bad happens to it (unless you drop it into water). Drop a hard drive, and it's dead. All in all, it is more likely that digitally stored information will be lost forever than a book.
At first glance I thought this sounded trollish -- like, who in the right mind will drop a hard drive? But then I realized this post has a point.
I for one, can recount the agony I had experienced years back when all of a sudden my harddrive failed and I lost many important data and documents. I rarely write anything on paper nowadays, and most of my important documents are first "written" into files, which I would later print should I ever need it in hardcopy format. I know the solution is simply to regularly back up your important files, but back then I did not have the luxury of doing so. And even now, I feel that backing up data on my regular computer is cumbersome, and even with the existing software solutions that can automate the backup procedure.
"The most recent to admit guilt was Samsung and no one, as yet, knows precisely why they did it"
What I find more interesting is why Samsung admitted its guilt. Isn't this negative publicity bad for them?
Where's the .torrent link? Someone please seed!
will they give me a Gmail invite now
uhm, please?
that is, not unless you're in a Star Wars movie :P
Straight from Google's cache