The article says: Sure, you'll get the full width of the 1080i resolution, but you're only getting half the height.
Except your 720p display will hopefully have a horizontal resolution of 1280. 1080i video has a horizontal resolution of 1920. So, you're keeping half of the vertical (1080 lines to 540) and you;re keeping 2/3rds of the horizontal (1920 down to 1280).
> yes the "alternate universe and timelines" plot is old
Seriously. We're watching an episode arc of spin-off at an earlier time of a classic science fiction show, where they portray an alternate of that universe and cross it with a completely different timeline.
Actually, they've gotten enough experience with it that they may end up doing these last four episodes pretty darn right. But it is a bit too late.
Your data called. It wants the integrity of its magnetic field back.
Re:There isn't any provider that meets my needs.
on
Voom No More
·
· Score: 1
Other than that, it give you *exactly* what you want.
Ouch. I should have thrown in a reasonable setup cost as a criteria. $1k to get going with this setup with DirecTV, and it'll be obsoleted when their MPEG4 satellites come out? I guess I got my HDTV a little too early.
Re:There isn't any provider that meets my needs.
on
Voom No More
·
· Score: 1
Wait... you're saying that if I go DirecTV, I can hook up the OTA antenna to _their_ HDDVR, and it does not pass through but actually records, in high definition, local channels?
If so, does it do it with full DVR functionality, like including those programs in the program guide?
If this does, I might just be sold.
Re:There isn't any provider that meets my needs.
on
Voom No More
·
· Score: 1
So get an OTA for your locals.
DirecTV does not provide a DVR that will receive OTA signals. The result is that, yes, you can receive OTA signals, but you totally lose your DVR functionality, which kind of defeats the purpose.
There isn't any provider that meets my needs.
on
Voom No More
·
· Score: 1
Nobody offers what I want. And I think my want list is pretty basoc.
1. I want the standard channel lineup. 2. I want the local channels in HIGH DEF that broadcast in high def. 3. I want some decent selection in HD channels. 4. I want a highdef DVR that can handle all channels. Locals and regulars. Highdef and standard.
DirecTV can't give me my locals in highdef because, they say, I live in the city and need that precious waiver that I'll never get.
Dish Network can't give me my locals in high def. So I'd lose all high definition programming on network channels. Ouch!
Zoom is gone, but had no DVR.
Cox Cable meets all requirements except for HDTV selection. HD is local networks + HBO/Showtime (pay) + DiscoveryHD/ESPNHD/INHD1/INHD2 free.
Sadly, I'm stuck in bed with Cox once again until somebody gets me what I need. (Please don't read something dirty into that.)
"It's a sign that we're all a little nervous in the post-9/11 world."
I believe that the musical group Green Day has a song that covers this topic. You'll find it as the cover track of the album entitled 'American Idiot'.
Perhaps you mean that he transferred the balance to the new Chase card which he gave you, both without your permission (and going against his earlier claim that you couldn't transfer balance from another Chase card). In that case, I can understand why you might be flustered.
> What's more is that SBC is at least partly correct > when they state that it is unfair that some > providers, such as themselves, are regulated while > others, such as any new comer, are not. It is > unfair.
Yet morally, they're on low ground. SBC is regulated for a reason. Care to explain to the readers why, without the spin?
I did a credit card app over the phone. I got an employee from India. We went through all the details and were ready to do the balance transfer. I gave him the account number that I wanted to transfer. He told me they couldn't do the balance transfer because it turned out to be from the same bank. Chase.
So, I told him that I didn't want the card. He then went on about the benefits. I told him I didn't want the card. He then went on about the benefits. I asked him if he could do the balance transfer at those rates. He said no. I told him I didn't want the card. He told me about the benefits of the card, I asked him if that included the balance transfer, he said no. He told me about more benefits of the card. (Repeat, repeat, repeat, until he got tired.) Finally, he got the message. I didn't want the card.
Two weeks later, I discover that my original Chase balance was paid off. Another week later, I find this new Chase credit card in my mail. Looks like he pushed my credit application through, anyhow, against my permission. Likely to boost his own stats.
Moral that I walked away with? Foreign BPO employees don't feel as accountable as the real thing. And they believe they can plausably write these things off as 'a misunderstanding' when explaining it to their bosses.
1. MAPS finds problem, discovers hosting by co-loc, bans entire co-loc. 2. Very shortly after ban, MAPS is unavailable for contact for 48+ hours. 3. MAPS refuses to unban innocent bystander. 4. MAPS refuses bystander's plea to contact co-loc.
Seems to me that MAPS has several problem. Aside from procedural issues, perceived arrogance, negligence, incompetence. Submitter is right. Overzealous, for sure.
They claimed that they couldn't change my address from my home address to a billing service address because of the patriot act. They wouldn't give any further justification, and refused to send my bills to any other location.
I called back and got another operator, who took my new billing information and would change it. She didn't.
I called again and finally got an operator who would change my billing address to a PO box for a bill payment service.
I don't know if this really has anything to do with the patriot act or not (requiring a home address?), but it sure did piss me off and cause me a lot of trouble.
Who is doing the port blocking? Spill the beans, already!
Yes, but will it change anything?
on
eBay Begins A Change
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
When I report a powerseller with a 99% feedback rating, will you listen?
Even if this powerseller takes VHS quality fan tapes that have been very poorly burned to DVD-R and sells them for $25+? Even if it violates the over-the-air recording policy, dvd-r policy, and copyright policy?
Even if I point out the many many feedbacks which agree with my point of view? Even if I include the email where he sells additional items outside of eBay?
Will you be there eBay? Will you listen? Or will you continue to go after more petty things like arcade collectors selling real bootleg pac-man PCBs from the period?
I'm trying to think what this group would have said if they were on the OPPOSITE side of the debate, actually trying to push this kind of network.
"We need to think of the children. We need our children to be competitive and we need our technology infrastructure to be competitive with other countries. We are falling behind in education and technology. You aren't against children and education, are you?"
For heaven's sake! Look at our research and HELP the CHILDREN by purchasing us a wireless network!
Or even better... "This technology will enable small businesses to be created and to come up with new services. It would grow the local economy and produce jobs!"
This is the funny thing. We're talking about small change here, folks. Very small change, in terms of big business, in what it will take to get a metro-wide WiFi service. All this complaint about big government and what-not? Heck. This is pocket change.
Any argument about 'big government' and 'wasted money' is silly. The only argument is it being hard for existing wireless services to compete against something like this. And a few large companies really believe in this argument and want you to believe in it, too.
The benefits to a community? Could be strong. Very strong. You've just got some large businesses that can afford lobbying groups to try to convince you and lawmakers that it is a bad idea. Seems to make this an even better idea.
It's logically the same as saying it was wrong. In this case, they specifically said they were not rewriting the kernel; e.g. they gave the reason why it was wrong, not just that it was wrong, which would seem to be the source of your complaint.
You're not thinking like a PR drone. You're thinking like a logical human being who talks in specifics.
From the article: "Open Source Development Labs (OSDL) [....] has denied that it plans to rewrite the Linux kernel to combat claims that it infringes some software patents." And "But the OSDL has denied that it is planning to rewrite parts of the kernel."
Lots out outs here. Perhaps OSDL themselves aren't doing the rewrite. Perhaps it IS doing the rewrite, but isn't doing it to combat _claims_. Perhaps they aren't planning it, but they have already planned it.
Compare/Contrast: CEO Speak. The way that CEOs get away with telling lies because, technically, they're not actually lies, even though they totally lead you to a wrong conclusion.
"OSDL officials have said that the report was not accurate..."
I always hate in when PR types use this phrase. Mind you, I like the OSDL, I just hate the "was not accurate" thing. For example...
"The report that Mr. Jones embezzled $10.5 million was not accurate." REASON: Mr. Jones actually embezzled $10,548,984. Its the classic non-denial denial where you deny something in super-general or super-specific terms, while not adding anything meaningful at the same time. It is more about perception than truth.
I don't know if the OSDL is playing perceptions vs. truth here, but I don't like things that are phrased in that particular manner for those reasons.
He appears to be collecting video tapes of rock videos, performances and interviews. And by video tapes, I do mean low quality VHS. Then he'd just sequentually burn them to DVD-Rs and sell them for full retail price.
He's got to have the fat wallet from this operation. And, of course, if you buy one thing, he'll offer you several other items after the purchase.
I see that other people's negative feedbacks don't do any good, so I'll report him to eBay for violating the CR-R/DVD-R policy, and for selling video he recorded that he does not own.
Yer right. Heck, Sun and IBM's 64-bit boxes don't even run Windoze. And everybody knows Windoze is the ONLY future desktop.
Well, there is Linux. But IBM's OS/2 department called. They want their mindshare back.
actually, Microsoft and others are kinda banking on the general purpose 'desktop' ceasing to exist before long
I really am starting to see the case for a walled garden in PCs. My mother in law's computer, with AOL no less, became so clogged with adware that I don't see how she used it. Or worse, ever surfed the web.
"IBM debuts Cell processors, designed to be used in workstations, Sony PlayStations gaming consoles, and in Toshiba televisions. Programming the processor is said to be relatively easy."
How much did they have to couch it? "Relatively easy?" "Said to be..." ?
Translation for the technical crowd: "Programming a cell processor is hard."
Remember IBM's microprocessor history that was posted to Slashdot a week or so back? I have to say, this one is far more even handed to the competition. Quite a lot of mentions of SPARC for the first time.
But this one line cracks me up...
American Technology Research predicts that Sun® and IBM® are well positioned to capture the 64-bit desktop market since both use the Opteron processor as an integral part of upcoming product lines and both have initiated flexible CPU roadmaps.
Sun? IBM? Capture the desktop market? My, these folks at American Technology Research much be geniuses! Or is that genusi?
FWIW, Sun has been doing 64 bit computing for quite some time now with the 64 bit SPARC chips it has been putting out for ages. But Sun Microsystems and IBM, masters of the 64 bit desktop? Oh boy.
Slashdot Mirror
The article says: Sure, you'll get the full width of the 1080i resolution, but you're only getting half the height.
Except your 720p display will hopefully have a horizontal resolution of 1280. 1080i video has a horizontal resolution of 1920. So, you're keeping half of the vertical (1080 lines to 540) and you;re keeping 2/3rds of the horizontal (1920 down to 1280).
Ouch.
> yes the "alternate universe and timelines" plot is old
Seriously. We're watching an episode arc of spin-off at an earlier time of a classic science fiction show, where they portray an alternate of that universe and cross it with a completely different timeline.
Actually, they've gotten enough experience with it that they may end up doing these last four episodes pretty darn right. But it is a bit too late.
That, and the stupid Enterprise theme song they would never apolgize for.
I consider their changing it for a parallel universe to be an apology.
Actually they are the #1 purveyors of sci-fi. They call it Fox News
Wouldn't that make it poli-fi?
Your data called.
It wants the integrity of its magnetic field back.
Other than that, it give you *exactly* what you want.
Ouch. I should have thrown in a reasonable setup cost as a criteria. $1k to get going with this setup with DirecTV, and it'll be obsoleted when their MPEG4 satellites come out? I guess I got my HDTV a little too early.
Wait... you're saying that if I go DirecTV, I can hook up the OTA antenna to _their_ HDDVR, and it does not pass through but actually records, in high definition, local channels?
If so, does it do it with full DVR functionality, like including those programs in the program guide?
If this does, I might just be sold.
So get an OTA for your locals.
DirecTV does not provide a DVR that will receive OTA signals. The result is that, yes, you can receive OTA signals, but you totally lose your DVR functionality, which kind of defeats the purpose.
Nobody offers what I want. And I think my want list is pretty basoc.
1. I want the standard channel lineup.
2. I want the local channels in HIGH DEF that broadcast in high def.
3. I want some decent selection in HD channels.
4. I want a highdef DVR that can handle all channels. Locals and regulars. Highdef and standard.
DirecTV can't give me my locals in highdef because, they say, I live in the city and need that precious waiver that I'll never get.
Dish Network can't give me my locals in high def. So I'd lose all high definition programming on network channels. Ouch!
Zoom is gone, but had no DVR.
Cox Cable meets all requirements except for HDTV selection. HD is local networks + HBO/Showtime (pay) + DiscoveryHD/ESPNHD/INHD1/INHD2 free.
Sadly, I'm stuck in bed with Cox once again until somebody gets me what I need. (Please don't read something dirty into that.)
"It's a sign that we're all a little nervous in the post-9/11 world."
I believe that the musical group Green Day has a song that covers this topic. You'll find it as the cover track of the album entitled 'American Idiot'.
Perhaps you mean that he transferred the balance to the new Chase card which he gave you, both without your permission (and going against his earlier claim that you couldn't transfer balance from another Chase card). In that case, I can understand why you might be flustered.
Bingo.
> What's more is that SBC is at least partly correct
> when they state that it is unfair that some
> providers, such as themselves, are regulated while
> others, such as any new comer, are not. It is
> unfair.
Yet morally, they're on low ground. SBC is regulated for a reason. Care to explain to the readers why, without the spin?
I did a credit card app over the phone. I got an employee from India. We went through all the details and were ready to do the balance transfer. I gave him the account number that I wanted to transfer. He told me they couldn't do the balance transfer because it turned out to be from the same bank. Chase.
So, I told him that I didn't want the card. He then went on about the benefits. I told him I didn't want the card. He then went on about the benefits. I asked him if he could do the balance transfer at those rates. He said no. I told him I didn't want the card. He told me about the benefits of the card, I asked him if that included the balance transfer, he said no. He told me about more benefits of the card. (Repeat, repeat, repeat, until he got tired.) Finally, he got the message. I didn't want the card.
Two weeks later, I discover that my original Chase balance was paid off. Another week later, I find this new Chase credit card in my mail. Looks like he pushed my credit application through, anyhow, against my permission. Likely to boost his own stats.
Moral that I walked away with? Foreign BPO employees don't feel as accountable as the real thing. And they believe they can plausably write these things off as 'a misunderstanding' when explaining it to their bosses.
1. MAPS finds problem, discovers hosting by co-loc, bans entire co-loc.
2. Very shortly after ban, MAPS is unavailable for contact for 48+ hours.
3. MAPS refuses to unban innocent bystander.
4. MAPS refuses bystander's plea to contact co-loc.
Seems to me that MAPS has several problem. Aside from procedural issues, perceived arrogance, negligence, incompetence. Submitter is right. Overzealous, for sure.
I sure wish they were better. It hurts the users.
They claimed that they couldn't change my address from my home address to a billing service address because of the patriot act. They wouldn't give any further justification, and refused to send my bills to any other location.
I called back and got another operator, who took my new billing information and would change it. She didn't.
I called again and finally got an operator who would change my billing address to a PO box for a bill payment service.
I don't know if this really has anything to do with the patriot act or not (requiring a home address?), but it sure did piss me off and cause me a lot of trouble.
Who is doing the port blocking? Spill the beans, already!
When I report a powerseller with a 99% feedback rating, will you listen?
Even if this powerseller takes VHS quality fan tapes that have been very poorly burned to DVD-R and sells them for $25+? Even if it violates the over-the-air recording policy, dvd-r policy, and copyright policy?
Even if I point out the many many feedbacks which agree with my point of view? Even if I include the email where he sells additional items outside of eBay?
Will you be there eBay? Will you listen? Or will you continue to go after more petty things like arcade collectors selling real bootleg pac-man PCBs from the period?
I'm trying to think what this group would have said if they were on the OPPOSITE side of the debate, actually trying to push this kind of network.
"We need to think of the children. We need our children to be competitive and we need our technology infrastructure to be competitive with other countries. We are falling behind in education and technology. You aren't against children and education, are you?"
For heaven's sake! Look at our research and HELP the CHILDREN by purchasing us a wireless network!
Or even better... "This technology will enable small businesses to be created and to come up with new services. It would grow the local economy and produce jobs!"
This is the funny thing. We're talking about small change here, folks. Very small change, in terms of big business, in what it will take to get a metro-wide WiFi service. All this complaint about big government and what-not? Heck. This is pocket change.
Any argument about 'big government' and 'wasted money' is silly. The only argument is it being hard for existing wireless services to compete against something like this. And a few large companies really believe in this argument and want you to believe in it, too.
The benefits to a community? Could be strong. Very strong. You've just got some large businesses that can afford lobbying groups to try to convince you and lawmakers that it is a bad idea. Seems to make this an even better idea.
It's logically the same as saying it was wrong. In this case, they specifically said they were not rewriting the kernel; e.g. they gave the reason why it was wrong, not just that it was wrong, which would seem to be the source of your complaint.
You're not thinking like a PR drone. You're thinking like a logical human being who talks in specifics.
From the article: "Open Source Development Labs (OSDL) [....] has denied that it plans to rewrite the Linux kernel to combat claims that it infringes some software patents." And "But the OSDL has denied that it is planning to rewrite parts of the kernel."
Lots out outs here. Perhaps OSDL themselves aren't doing the rewrite. Perhaps it IS doing the rewrite, but isn't doing it to combat _claims_. Perhaps they aren't planning it, but they have already planned it.
Compare/Contrast: CEO Speak. The way that CEOs get away with telling lies because, technically, they're not actually lies, even though they totally lead you to a wrong conclusion.
"OSDL officials have said that the report was not accurate..."
I always hate in when PR types use this phrase. Mind you, I like the OSDL, I just hate the "was not accurate" thing. For example...
"The report that Mr. Jones embezzled $10.5 million was not accurate." REASON: Mr. Jones actually embezzled $10,548,984. Its the classic non-denial denial where you deny something in super-general or super-specific terms, while not adding anything meaningful at the same time. It is more about perception than truth.
I don't know if the OSDL is playing perceptions vs. truth here, but I don't like things that are phrased in that particular manner for those reasons.
"* - Allegedly"
He appears to be collecting video tapes of rock videos, performances and interviews. And by video tapes, I do mean low quality VHS. Then he'd just sequentually burn them to DVD-Rs and sell them for full retail price.
He's got to have the fat wallet from this operation. And, of course, if you buy one thing, he'll offer you several other items after the purchase.
I see that other people's negative feedbacks don't do any good, so I'll report him to eBay for violating the CR-R/DVD-R policy, and for selling video he recorded that he does not own.
johnnymadness
*-Thown in only to avoid legal hassle of an angry person getting caught.
Yer right. Heck, Sun and IBM's 64-bit boxes don't even run Windoze. And everybody knows Windoze is the ONLY future desktop.
Well, there is Linux. But IBM's OS/2 department called. They want their mindshare back.
actually, Microsoft and others are kinda banking on the general purpose 'desktop' ceasing to exist before long
I really am starting to see the case for a walled garden in PCs. My mother in law's computer, with AOL no less, became so clogged with adware that I don't see how she used it. Or worse, ever surfed the web.
"IBM debuts Cell processors, designed to be used in workstations, Sony PlayStations gaming consoles, and in Toshiba televisions. Programming the processor is said to be relatively easy."
How much did they have to couch it? "Relatively easy?" "Said to be..." ?
Translation for the technical crowd:
"Programming a cell processor is hard."
Remember IBM's microprocessor history that was posted to Slashdot a week or so back? I have to say, this one is far more even handed to the competition. Quite a lot of mentions of SPARC for the first time.
But this one line cracks me up...
American Technology Research predicts that Sun® and IBM® are well positioned to capture the 64-bit desktop market since both use the Opteron processor as an integral part of upcoming product lines and both have initiated flexible CPU roadmaps.
Sun? IBM? Capture the desktop market? My, these folks at American Technology Research much be geniuses! Or is that genusi?
FWIW, Sun has been doing 64 bit computing for quite some time now with the 64 bit SPARC chips it has been putting out for ages. But Sun Microsystems and IBM, masters of the 64 bit desktop? Oh boy.