Hmmm, okay, I think I just realized something - round pixels _would_ improve jaggies just on that fact alone. I hadn't thought of that. I think I'd rather have higher resolution, but I don't know that it would be mutually exclusive. As long as I don't have to use a Trinitron monitor with it's attendant dampening wires, I'm usually happy. I really like Hitachi's CRTs. I've seen the 22" Apple CinemaDisplay and it's amazing - my mind boggles at the thought of the higher resolution of the new 23" version (and at the $3500 price, too!:)
The problem remains, though, between matching up the square pixels of high-end digital cameras and non-square pixels of displays (whether round or rectangular).
I'm also not sure the previously-mentioned ability to better see the compression artifacts on jpeg's is a 'problem' with LCDs - is this perhaps instead a sign of a better display (at least in that respect?). Those things are usually obvious to me (same with those damn dampening wires). I'd just as soon use a better file format where the problem is reduced (wavelets, anyone?).
Why are square pixels bad? What's better - _round_?! Or would you prefer some wierd rectangular pixel? Seems to me the most pixel per space would be square or rectangular. The nice digital cameras (high-end ones) have square pixels in them, so the original picture is being taken with square pixels in the originals now. I'd rather have square pixels.
The initial DVD of LOTR: FOTR will be the normal 3 hour cut, but a subsequent one coming in November will have a FOUR hour cut, which should be pretty close to your wish. FYI.
Probably only a problem with the perl _compiler_ - if you just want to use ActiveState perl, that doesn't happen - I should now, cuz I have ActiveState perl on the same Win2k box I use NIS on, and I've never had a problem.
This is a great product. It includes Norton's AntiVirus product (much better than McAfee, in my experience), as well as their 'software' firewall product (based on AtGuard). It also can block web ads in your browser. Very nice product, lots of features, and well worth the price.
Well, if you use Outlook, and you're dumb enough to run with preview pane on, you deserve what you get. Simply run without the preview pane on, and delete messages from unknown people before reading them. Very simple.
Well, you know, after that whole standard-metric conversion fiasco, they're pretty paranoid about measurements at NASA.
Okie dokey - time to figure out how to migrate!
on
Evolution 1.0 Released
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Well, now I need to figure out how to migrate my email from Outlook 2002 (not Outlook Express), to Evolution. I _think_ I've got a way, but not sure. Has this feature been added to a recent version of Evolution?
The previous way I figured out how I could do this was to fire up Eudora, as it could open Outlook 2000 email files (not sure about Outlook 2002) - then once you've got your email in Eudora's format (related to mbox format, as I recall - could be wrong), then it was easy to convert to a UNIX way of things. If Evolution doesn't do this automatically, it certainly should. That's one of the big challenges of moving people from MS software to anything else - converting those file formats with ease, and doing so _perfectly_, every time.
I'm using (well, WAS using) a Linksys Cable/DSL Router (with NAT). Unfortunately, my machine couldn't use DNS when behind the Linksys NAT, so I've had to (hopefully _temporarily_) go back to being hooked up directly. Very strange, and the people at AT&T broadband customer service didn't know of a fix - they said it'll hopefully be fixed, but they'd not heard of the problem.
Yeah, I agree with that. But then go see "Monsters, Inc." and be amazed at the perfection that is Sully's fur. Absolutely perfect, and hair has been one of the hardest things to do in CGI. Now they need to work on human skin, and they'll be able to do most anything they need to do. I wouldn't worry too much about the orc in LOTR yet - until you see it in the final movie, on the bigscreen, there's no telling how good it really will be.
Re:If magic was reliable and repeatable ...
on
Review: Harry Potter
·
· Score: 2
Hardly. See the Harry Potter movie. Then go see something like Monsters, Inc. A world of difference. Then if you want a truly 'great' movie (as in all-time classic), go see 'Amelie'. Then, once you're hooked on Jeunet's storytelling, go buy the DVD for "City of Lost Children". Then come back and tell us how not-great the HP movie is. It's good, but it's not all that and a bag of chips.
awesome special effects?! i don't think so...
on
Review: Harry Potter
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Fluffy (the giant three-headed dog) was quite fuzzy, typical of bad special effects. The background and arena of the Quidditch match was not well-done (though the Quidditch players themselves were great). The troll was terrible - Shrek-style animation in a live-action movie? Bad move. It's kinda strange - it looks as if part of the was done by a team that didn't have anywhere near as much experience as stuff done in the rest of the movie. Makes me wonder...
Re:"Sorcerer's Stone" vs. "Philosopher's Stone"
on
Review: Harry Potter
·
· Score: 2
But it's interesting that when you know what the stone _does_, it's got nothing to do with being a philosopher, and everything to do with being a sorcerer, so it all works out in the end.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmm, okay, I think I just realized something - round pixels _would_ improve jaggies just on that fact alone. I hadn't thought of that. I think I'd rather have higher resolution, but I don't know that it would be mutually exclusive. As long as I don't have to use a Trinitron monitor with it's attendant dampening wires, I'm usually happy. I really like Hitachi's CRTs. I've seen the 22" Apple CinemaDisplay and it's amazing - my mind boggles at the thought of the higher resolution of the new 23" version (and at the $3500 price, too! :)
The problem remains, though, between matching up the square pixels of high-end digital cameras and non-square pixels of displays (whether round or rectangular).
I'm also not sure the previously-mentioned ability to better see the compression artifacts on jpeg's is a 'problem' with LCDs - is this perhaps instead a sign of a better display (at least in that respect?). Those things are usually obvious to me (same with those damn dampening wires). I'd just as soon use a better file format where the problem is reduced (wavelets, anyone?).
Why are square pixels bad? What's better - _round_?! Or would you prefer some wierd rectangular pixel? Seems to me the most pixel per space would be square or rectangular. The nice digital cameras (high-end ones) have square pixels in them, so the original picture is being taken with square pixels in the originals now. I'd rather have square pixels.
The initial DVD of LOTR: FOTR will be the normal 3 hour cut, but a subsequent one coming in November will have a FOUR hour cut, which should be pretty close to your wish. FYI.
Who notices Jar Jar Binks when Natalie Portman is on the screen?! Geez, that's sad.
...charge the cost of the bullet to the spammer's family! :)
I like it. It's...elegant.
Yes, but the extra radiation put out by a gas giant may very well increase the chances of live evolving on a life-supporting moon, so ya never know...
Probably only a problem with the perl _compiler_ - if you just want to use ActiveState perl, that doesn't happen - I should now, cuz I have ActiveState perl on the same Win2k box I use NIS on, and I've never had a problem.
This is a great product. It includes Norton's AntiVirus product (much better than McAfee, in my experience), as well as their 'software' firewall product (based on AtGuard). It also can block web ads in your browser. Very nice product, lots of features, and well worth the price.
:)
A spoiler would be like someone telling you Saruman is really Frodo's father, before you had a chance to see the movie. :)
I suppose this means that GMR technology is "sufficiently advanced."
Well, if you use Outlook, and you're dumb enough to run with preview pane on, you deserve what you get. Simply run without the preview pane on, and delete messages from unknown people before reading them. Very simple.
Didn't they go out of business awhile back?
Hmm - don't give them any ideas.
Well, you know, after that whole standard-metric conversion fiasco, they're pretty paranoid about measurements at NASA.
Well, now I need to figure out how to migrate my email from Outlook 2002 (not Outlook Express), to Evolution. I _think_ I've got a way, but not sure. Has this feature been added to a recent version of Evolution?
The previous way I figured out how I could do this was to fire up Eudora, as it could open Outlook 2000 email files (not sure about Outlook 2002) - then once you've got your email in Eudora's format (related to mbox format, as I recall - could be wrong), then it was easy to convert to a UNIX way of things. If Evolution doesn't do this automatically, it certainly should. That's one of the big challenges of moving people from MS software to anything else - converting those file formats with ease, and doing so _perfectly_, every time.
> I like Evolution... really, I do. Except, I can't use it.
"But Mom, all the other kids evolve!"
"If all the other kids jumped off a cliff, would you want to as well?"
Stupid parents, forbidding evolution. *sigh*
Hey, watch your fucking language!
I'm using (well, WAS using) a Linksys Cable/DSL Router (with NAT). Unfortunately, my machine couldn't use DNS when behind the Linksys NAT, so I've had to (hopefully _temporarily_) go back to being hooked up directly. Very strange, and the people at AT&T broadband customer service didn't know of a fix - they said it'll hopefully be fixed, but they'd not heard of the problem.
Panasonic Binary Enigma! :)
Yeah, I agree with that. But then go see "Monsters, Inc." and be amazed at the perfection that is Sully's fur. Absolutely perfect, and hair has been one of the hardest things to do in CGI. Now they need to work on human skin, and they'll be able to do most anything they need to do. I wouldn't worry too much about the orc in LOTR yet - until you see it in the final movie, on the bigscreen, there's no telling how good it really will be.
Wow. Lots of similarities to 'Real Genius'. :)
Hardly. See the Harry Potter movie. Then go see something like Monsters, Inc. A world of difference. Then if you want a truly 'great' movie (as in all-time classic), go see 'Amelie'. Then, once you're hooked on Jeunet's storytelling, go buy the DVD for "City of Lost Children". Then come back and tell us how not-great the HP movie is. It's good, but it's not all that and a bag of chips.
Fluffy (the giant three-headed dog) was quite fuzzy, typical of bad special effects. The background and arena of the Quidditch match was not well-done (though the Quidditch players themselves were great). The troll was terrible - Shrek-style animation in a live-action movie? Bad move. It's kinda strange - it looks as if part of the was done by a team that didn't have anywhere near as much experience as stuff done in the rest of the movie. Makes me wonder...
But it's interesting that when you know what the stone _does_, it's got nothing to do with being a philosopher, and everything to do with being a sorcerer, so it all works out in the end.