It's my understanding (from reading AVS Forum threads) that component actually has the bandwidth to support 1080p/60 (even if no HDTV manufacturer yet supports it). However, due to the influence of media conglomerates (MPAA) the migration to 1080p/60 will be limited to hdmi for content protection purposes. RE: conversion from 1080i to 1080p/30, that's simple de-interlacing - store one interlaced frame in memory, grab the next frame, combine, pass progressive frame to display. That's why there's no bandwidth difference between 1080i and 1080p/30 - it's exactly the same data. Upconverted 720p is different is another beast entirely, since that defaults to 60fps. Presumably upconverting 720p to 1080p/60 would look noticeably better than upconverting to 1080i, especially for fast action and panning scenes like viewing sports.
Is that 1080p/24, 1080p/30, or 1080p/60? Because 1080p/30 has the same bandwidth requirements as 1080i/60 (duh). I haven't seen from either Sony or MS any technical specs which indicate real 1080p/60 support, even over hdmi.
That's definitely the case. I just bought a MacBook to replace my ti powerbook g4 800, which I wouldn't have done had one of the hinges not finally given out. I had budgeted this purchase for next year, to wait out a bugfix in the next generation MacBook. But -- oh, well! Shit happens. Fortunately, the MacBook is good. Performace is excellent for the price, and all the software (except classic) still works like a champ! What more could I ask?
- Making sure everyone only votes once - Keeping the entire process anonymous
In Iraq we solved that problem by having Iraqi citizens dip a finger in ink after having voted. There. Absolute prevention of individuals voting more than once, and it doesn't impact anonymity. Plus, it's far cheaper than electronic voting. Many other third world countries use this low tech approach. Why not us?
The problem I see is everybody tries to pin *everything* on Bush, you trip on a crack and it's his fault, etc.
Two points:
1) Fritz Hollings (D-South Carolina): Proposed the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act, an onerous and horrific bill had it been passed. IOW: There are many Democrats on the side of media monopolies too.
2) President Bush is responsible for setting policy, and that includes FCC policy. However, that does not mean that President Bush had anything to do with the decision to destroy this document. In all likelihood, he didn't even know it existed. However, the President is still responsible for what happens under his watch as the policymaker. Boards of directors still hold CEOs accountable for serious mismanagement or criminal conduct by their staff, even if the CEO may not have been directly involved.
So... If you are a hacker...and you get hired at a company who doesnt know you're a hacker...and you hack something "bad" while at work...by your logic, people outside watching your actions are watching the policy of your employer in action.
Please allow me to rearrange your analogy into something a little closer to the truth:
A man is hired into upper management of a firm (Powell in '97). As a manager, he is expected to follow policy as set by the board of directors and the board Chair (President Clinton). The board and chair change hands (President Bush, Jan 2001). This new Chair decides to promote the man to CEO of the firm. The man as CEO now engages in massive layoffs.
Who do you think set the cost restructuring policy? In the real world it would be the board (President Bush) telling the CEO to meet a cost and head count target, and then it would be up to the CEO to create and enact a plan to meet those targets. The CEO did NOT set the policy, he instead crafted a plan to meet the policy as set by the board of directors.
IOW: Bush always sets policy for his administration, but it is up to the heads of each agency to determine for themselves (often with the direction of cabinet members) the exact plan to meet the administration's targets.
Here is the complete list of commissioners and when they were appointed. Please note each of the appointments past Jan 20th, 2001. Now, who set FCC policy? Was it Democratic commissioners or Republican? You figure it out.
And quit selecting specific facts out of context in order to misrepresent the obvious. It's both disingenuous and easily refuted.
No, I don't realize that - because it's not factually accurate. Powell, as a member of the GOP, was appointed to the FCC board by Clinton in '97. Bush appointed him Chair to the FCC board in January of 2001. As a board member he was in no position to set or control policy. As the chairman of the FCC, under a president of the same political party, one can reasonably assume Michael Powell enacted policy as set by the Bush administration. These intellectual contortions to avoid that fact is just plain lame. Deal.
That's a misrepresentation. First of all, Michael Powell is a Republican. He may have been appointed to a position in the FCC by Clinton in '97, however president Bush appointed him chairman of the FCC immediately after his first inauguration in 2001. As a member of the FCC board during the Clinton administration, Powell would not have had the power to set FCC policy. However, as the Chair under Bush - he certainly did. What we're seeing here is most definitely not Clinton FCC policy.
maybe he just wanted to keep his kid's dirty fingers off his PC. Anyway, a C-64 can take one hell of a beating - one of the reasons so many of 'em are still around.
TOS is still available via DVD, it will be rebroadcast in its original form on TV LAND... there's just no comparison to Lucas' repeated muddling of the Star Wars plot and effects. The only reason Lucas has decided to sell the original unmodified trilogy is because so many people downloaded or bought used laserdisc copies, rather than buy his recent updated box set.
I mean, I grew up with TOS and think it's kinda cool CBS will rebroadcast it in HD - but I'm not clamoring for it either. I just think the comparison between Paramount's changes tp TOS vs. what Lucas did to the original Star Wars is just plain unfair.
Stupid or not, I notice that you didn't argue the merit of my argument that google (or the db aggregators) could not make money charging for public domain content. *shrug* So, do you have a point to make?
"[...]LexisNexis, NewsBank, and Ebsco all make money selling historical archives."
Note, however, that the database and search services you list primarily make money offering copyrighted historical works, not historical works currently in the public domain. Google wishes to sell access to material in the public domain. I don't think that is a sound business plan, but perhaps I'm wrong. Time will tell... --M
I don't see how google can make money doing this when competitors like Projecdt Gutenberg (groups releasing free text of material in the public domain) do the same for free. I think google would better position itself by giving free access to limit incentive for free competitors to do the same, and then make their money by selling advertising.
"You mean, we have no idea how to properly predict climatology? Any changes we attempt to make may be a moot point, because the planet in the end may have complete control?"
The climate scientists do appear to be making predictions. Those predictions aren't pleasant. Further, they are making these predictions based -- now -- on 800,000 years worth of ice core data (rather than ~600K years of data as before). There are other indicators, from tree ring data to a range of species from warmer regions migrating up north and down south as temperatures change. And then there's all that glacial freshwater being dumped into the sea due to arctic warming, as well as unprecedented permafrost melts.
There's plenty of data to back the assertion that human activity is the cause for increasing CO2 density in the atmosphere. --M
Thank you for that link. I know I could have googled it. I know if I had dug I could have found it. Whatever. Digging through that makes me want that old music again. And hell, I bet the dude is broke and could use the money.
BTW: were you following Throbbing Gristle and Cabaret Voltaire? Those two bands and the Dead Kennedy's were my introduction to the seriously weird. From that I struck out to punk and hardcore on the one hand and Negativland / Moev / Skinny Puppy / Tackhead on the other. Christ, my parents hated that shit.:) Also, what do you make of Nurse with Wound? Their shit is seriously fucked up too.
I miss that album so much. Somehow, I lost it. But I've got the LP cover with that scene from Alien still in my basement. I don't know why I haven't thrown it away, other than that it reminds me of my teen years when I bought it. Fucking weird shit. But good.:)
It's a combination of two factors: Blu-Ray specifies non-lossy 7.1 audio which consumes significant space; mpeg2 is much less efficient at compression than mpeg4 or VC1. Dual layer HD-DVD affords 30GB, plus compressed audio, plus the better codecs, while Blu-Ray is currently only shipping single layer discs (at 25GB). Hence, blu-Ray discs are currently overcompressed due to space constraints.
As the responder to my top post noted, the use of mpeg2 for blu-ray is a function of the rendering software available to content producers. Presumably, that will be resolved in the future. Further, dual layer blu-ray discs are ~50GB a pop - which also lightens the space squeeze. But the current situation is that HD-DVD discs look significantly better than their blu-ray counterparts. It's *very* noticable. Finally, blu-ray drives are twice the price of HD-DVD. Lesser quality, twice the price: that's no way to compete with a product introduction.
I point you to the Blu-Ray forum at avsforum for details. There's no end of bitching about it over there...
Slashdot Mirror
'cause that damn psp just sits around collecting dust. My coworker has a DS lite and he's playing the damn thing all the time.
It's my understanding (from reading AVS Forum threads) that component actually has the bandwidth to support 1080p/60 (even if no HDTV manufacturer yet supports it). However, due to the influence of media conglomerates (MPAA) the migration to 1080p/60 will be limited to hdmi for content protection purposes. RE: conversion from 1080i to 1080p/30, that's simple de-interlacing - store one interlaced frame in memory, grab the next frame, combine, pass progressive frame to display. That's why there's no bandwidth difference between 1080i and 1080p/30 - it's exactly the same data. Upconverted 720p is different is another beast entirely, since that defaults to 60fps. Presumably upconverting 720p to 1080p/60 would look noticeably better than upconverting to 1080i, especially for fast action and panning scenes like viewing sports.
Is that 1080p/24, 1080p/30, or 1080p/60? Because 1080p/30 has the same bandwidth requirements as 1080i/60 (duh). I haven't seen from either Sony or MS any technical specs which indicate real 1080p/60 support, even over hdmi.
Those of us whose PPC machines shit the bed and need a working machine. That's who buys right now.
That's definitely the case. I just bought a MacBook to replace my ti powerbook g4 800, which I wouldn't have done had one of the hinges not finally given out. I had budgeted this purchase for next year, to wait out a bugfix in the next generation MacBook. But -- oh, well! Shit happens. Fortunately, the MacBook is good. Performace is excellent for the price, and all the software (except classic) still works like a champ! What more could I ask?
"Name, please?"
"Uh. Mr. John Doe."
"John Doe. OK, here's your ballot. Now, could you sign - Oh my God! What happened to your fingers?"
"Right. Could I just get on with it? It's my last finger today."
- Making sure everyone only votes once
- Keeping the entire process anonymous
In Iraq we solved that problem by having Iraqi citizens dip a finger in ink after having voted. There. Absolute prevention of individuals voting more than once, and it doesn't impact anonymity. Plus, it's far cheaper than electronic voting. Many other third world countries use this low tech approach. Why not us?
in this shop we shoot for five nines!
The problem I see is everybody tries to pin *everything* on Bush, you trip on a crack and it's his fault, etc.
Two points:
1) Fritz Hollings (D-South Carolina): Proposed the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act, an onerous and horrific bill had it been passed. IOW: There are many Democrats on the side of media monopolies too.
2) President Bush is responsible for setting policy, and that includes FCC policy. However, that does not mean that President Bush had anything to do with the decision to destroy this document. In all likelihood, he didn't even know it existed. However, the President is still responsible for what happens under his watch as the policymaker. Boards of directors still hold CEOs accountable for serious mismanagement or criminal conduct by their staff, even if the CEO may not have been directly involved.
So... If you are a hacker...and you get hired at a company who doesnt know you're a hacker...and you hack something "bad" while at work...by your logic, people outside watching your actions are watching the policy of your employer in action.
Please allow me to rearrange your analogy into something a little closer to the truth:
A man is hired into upper management of a firm (Powell in '97). As a manager, he is expected to follow policy as set by the board of directors and the board Chair (President Clinton). The board and chair change hands (President Bush, Jan 2001). This new Chair decides to promote the man to CEO of the firm. The man as CEO now engages in massive layoffs.
Who do you think set the cost restructuring policy? In the real world it would be the board (President Bush) telling the CEO to meet a cost and head count target, and then it would be up to the CEO to create and enact a plan to meet those targets. The CEO did NOT set the policy, he instead crafted a plan to meet the policy as set by the board of directors.
IOW: Bush always sets policy for his administration, but it is up to the heads of each agency to determine for themselves (often with the direction of cabinet members) the exact plan to meet the administration's targets.
Here is the complete list of commissioners and when they were appointed. Please note each of the appointments past Jan 20th, 2001. Now, who set FCC policy? Was it Democratic commissioners or Republican? You figure it out.
And quit selecting specific facts out of context in order to misrepresent the obvious. It's both disingenuous and easily refuted.
No, I don't realize that - because it's not factually accurate. Powell, as a member of the GOP, was appointed to the FCC board by Clinton in '97. Bush appointed him Chair to the FCC board in January of 2001. As a board member he was in no position to set or control policy. As the chairman of the FCC, under a president of the same political party, one can reasonably assume Michael Powell enacted policy as set by the Bush administration. These intellectual contortions to avoid that fact is just plain lame. Deal.
That's a misrepresentation. First of all, Michael Powell is a Republican. He may have been appointed to a position in the FCC by Clinton in '97, however president Bush appointed him chairman of the FCC immediately after his first inauguration in 2001. As a member of the FCC board during the Clinton administration, Powell would not have had the power to set FCC policy. However, as the Chair under Bush - he certainly did. What we're seeing here is most definitely not Clinton FCC policy.
Who appoints the chairman of the FCC? President Bush. Who sets FCC policy? The FCC chair. Ergo... you are seeing Bush administration policy in action.
maybe he just wanted to keep his kid's dirty fingers off his PC. Anyway, a C-64 can take one hell of a beating - one of the reasons so many of 'em are still around.
TOS is still available via DVD, it will be rebroadcast in its original form on TV LAND... there's just no comparison to Lucas' repeated muddling of the Star Wars plot and effects. The only reason Lucas has decided to sell the original unmodified trilogy is because so many people downloaded or bought used laserdisc copies, rather than buy his recent updated box set.
I mean, I grew up with TOS and think it's kinda cool CBS will rebroadcast it in HD - but I'm not clamoring for it either. I just think the comparison between Paramount's changes tp TOS vs. what Lucas did to the original Star Wars is just plain unfair.
*shrug*
Stupid or not, I notice that you didn't argue the merit of my argument that google (or the db aggregators) could not make money charging for public domain content. *shrug* So, do you have a point to make?
"[...]LexisNexis, NewsBank, and Ebsco all make money selling historical archives."
Note, however, that the database and search services you list primarily make money offering copyrighted historical works, not historical works currently in the public domain. Google wishes to sell access to material in the public domain. I don't think that is a sound business plan, but perhaps I'm wrong. Time will tell... --M
I don't see how google can make money doing this when competitors like Projecdt Gutenberg (groups releasing free text of material in the public domain) do the same for free. I think google would better position itself by giving free access to limit incentive for free competitors to do the same, and then make their money by selling advertising.
"You mean, we have no idea how to properly predict climatology? Any changes we attempt to make may be a moot point, because the planet in the end may have complete control?"
The climate scientists do appear to be making predictions. Those predictions aren't pleasant. Further, they are making these predictions based -- now -- on 800,000 years worth of ice core data (rather than ~600K years of data as before). There are other indicators, from tree ring data to a range of species from warmer regions migrating up north and down south as temperatures change. And then there's all that glacial freshwater being dumped into the sea due to arctic warming, as well as unprecedented permafrost melts.
There's plenty of data to back the assertion that human activity is the cause for increasing CO2 density in the atmosphere. --M
HDMI simply wraps DVI and audio into a single cable. Many older DVI based HDTVs support HDCP just fine. --M
Thank you for that link. I know I could have googled it. I know if I had dug I could have found it. Whatever. Digging through that makes me want that old music again. And hell, I bet the dude is broke and could use the money.
:) Also, what do you make of Nurse with Wound? Their shit is seriously fucked up too.
BTW: were you following Throbbing Gristle and Cabaret Voltaire? Those two bands and the Dead Kennedy's were my introduction to the seriously weird. From that I struck out to punk and hardcore on the one hand and Negativland / Moev / Skinny Puppy / Tackhead on the other. Christ, my parents hated that shit.
I miss that album so much. Somehow, I lost it. But I've got the LP cover with that scene from Alien still in my basement. I don't know why I haven't thrown it away, other than that it reminds me of my teen years when I bought it. Fucking weird shit. But good. :)
what
what
what
what
what's my mission now?
It's a combination of two factors: Blu-Ray specifies non-lossy 7.1 audio which consumes significant space; mpeg2 is much less efficient at compression than mpeg4 or VC1. Dual layer HD-DVD affords 30GB, plus compressed audio, plus the better codecs, while Blu-Ray is currently only shipping single layer discs (at 25GB). Hence, blu-Ray discs are currently overcompressed due to space constraints.
As the responder to my top post noted, the use of mpeg2 for blu-ray is a function of the rendering software available to content producers. Presumably, that will be resolved in the future. Further, dual layer blu-ray discs are ~50GB a pop - which also lightens the space squeeze. But the current situation is that HD-DVD discs look significantly better than their blu-ray counterparts. It's *very* noticable. Finally, blu-ray drives are twice the price of HD-DVD. Lesser quality, twice the price: that's no way to compete with a product introduction.
I point you to the Blu-Ray forum at avsforum for details. There's no end of bitching about it over there...