Sometimes I wonder if the food and drug companies policed themselves, rather than the FDA, if they'd be more pro-active and careful. It's one thing for a company to pull a quick one past the government, but it's another if the company's peers' brand name depends on it.
That didn't work too well in the 19th and early 20th century. If you want melamine-tainted food to be the rule rather than the exception, then, by all means, let's go back to unregulated days.
Look, I'm all for making robots and AIs do work, but outsourcing our drug use (and sex, apparently) is just going too far! Leave at least something for us puny humans to enjoy!
Funny, I thought it was the opposite--a way to provide surround over optical without buying a new receiver, since optical doesn't have the bandwidth for surround PCM.
You're entirely correct with regards to optical, but I was talking about audio sent via HDMI. It doesn't need to be bitstreamed, there is plenty of bandwidth to send the full PCM soundtrack.
Linear PCM is the proper and prescribed way to get digital audio out of a Bluray player. That's how the spec is designed. Like nearly all Bluray players, the fat PS3 has always been able to take DTS Master Audio, Dolby True HD, or whatever format and "unzip" them to multichannel PCM. The only exception is older DVDs released in DTS 6.1 or 7.1 (*NOT^ Dolby Digital, which works fine). In those isolated cases, bitstreaming would be superior if you had a 6.1 or 7.1 system.
As for bitstreaming, this is a recent phenomenon, basically invented Dolby, DTS Labs, and the companies that make AV receivers. Basically, it's an excuse to sell you a newer receiver (or possibly, a newer Bluray player). Regardless, the PS3 Slim can bitstream DTS Master Audio and Dolby TrueHD, but doing that disables player sounds and commentary tracks, which should indicate to you that you're not doing something Bluray's designers originally intended.
Ultimately, none of this should matter, since Blurays have enough storage space that the authors could conceivably just dump a raw PCM soundtrack on the discs without any compression. But again, they have to have a reason to keep you upgrading, and audio formats are one way.;)
I just bought new computers for me and my son. They were $500, and they can play games easily with graphics as good as any current console. They come with HDMI, so, while I do have them plugged into monitors, I can just as easily plug them into my 50 inch plasma. As for controllers, XBox controllers work on Windows with a free driver, Adapters to use Playstation controllers are cheap and widely available, and XBox360 controllers are officially supported on Windows.
So, you paid $1000, and if you're willing to unfasten them from their desk, scoot them around, and pay for other peripherals that you would have bought anyway, you can sort-of replicate the experience of playing with a $200 console. Well, there goes my argument!
Computers do not get slower each year. There is nothing in them that wears out. What you are think of is that each year, games come out that look better for those that upgraded that year, but the games still look great on previous generation PC hardware. This means that you can choose to continue to use your existing hardware, OR upgrade for better graphics. On consoles, you just stick with the existing hardware, and your games don't look significantly better until new hardware comes out.
Computers, especially computers with Windows, get slower every time you install junk...like say, the matchmaking software that comes with your games, or the DRM that's snooping on your CD-ROM drives, or just any old run of the mill garbage software. They're also prone to spyware and viruses. And "games still look great on previous generation PC hardware"?!! No way, Pollyanna. Eventually, you'll get to the point where PC games require you to turn the resolution down until they look butt ugly, and sometimes they still revert to a slideshow in a crowded room. Each step along that path is a depressing one, as your formerly screaming graphics card ends up obsolete. Whereas with consoles, developers find ways to make the most out of the hardware, and games do end up looking significantly better. Compare early PS2 games to God of War 2 if you want to see an example.
You are right, Steam is a terrible idea and not a selling point. Unfortunately, consoles are not a lot better off in that area.
Totally agree, and they're getting worse...but at least for now, you can buy a disc and not have to worry about a company throwing a switch somewhere and depriving you access to hundreds of dollars worth of your own games on your own hard drive.
The thing to remember is that a console IS a computer. What surprises me is that one of the PC motherboard manufacturers has not taken Linux, licensed a few game engines, built a desktop/dashboard that gives a console feel, dropping it all into one of their all in one motherboards in a livingroom electronics looking case. Someone like Asus, Acer, or even Dell, could in very short order be a major player in the game console market.
Maybe you've heard of this company called "Microsoft." They did that about 8 years ago, and they've lost billions because of it. And now you're suggesting another company without its massive cash flow try it? I don't think that's a great idea, to put it mildly.
No one I know resells their games anyway... PC or Console, if they didn't want to have it they would have rented it.
Well, since no one you know does it, I guess it doesn't happen. I guess that multi-billion dollar business called "Gamestop" must be part of my imagination. And where can you rent PC games?
I have 46 inches of useable space on my desktop, its just a matter of what you plug your screen into...
What does that mean? You have dual monitors? Cool, but that's pretty useless for games...not to mention LCDs still suck compared to CRTs/plasmas in terms of motion and color fidelity. But maybe I'm just too picky.
And 250 a year? Not even close... try 250 everytime a console is release AND you get to play your existing games AND the new games.
You get to play your existing games*.
*Unless you have Vista/Windows 7 and you wanna play early Win95/98 games like System Shock 2. *Or you get a virus. *Or the DRM timebomb in your game goes off and leaves it inaccessible.
Too bad the console makes all your current games garbage....
Ignoring backwards compatibility (which is featured more or less in all 3 major consoles), your console doesn't magically stop working when a new one is released. In fact, the only console I've owned that's ever broken is the Xbox 360. I have every console from the NES to the PS3. My PCs on the other hand, die a lot more often, whether it's due to bitrot or hardware failure, and it takes an injection of cash (or warranty replacement) every time.
(which pretty much just leaves scrollers and sports)
Wow, you really can't think of any other genres. RPGs ring a bell? Puzzle games? Music games? You know what? Never mind, I know you want to get back to Starcraft, so I'll just let you get back. They'e probably destroying your city.
I like PCs because I know that even in 5 years, when your xbox can't even produce enough pixels to cover my 22" monitor and has to upscale its renderings, my PC will be (for the price of a graphics card) right back up at the top of the line for graphics.
How much is "the price of a graphics card?" $200? Or, you could get an Xbox. Plus, if you have a laptop, you'll have to either buy a new laptop or a separate PC, specifically for gaming. And you'll still have to deal with that crushing feeling of your PC getting sloooower and slooooower with every new game you install, unless you keep paying every year.
Not to mention...hunched over a desk at a laggy, overly bright LCD panel is no way to play games. How about sitting comfortably on your couch experiencing deep blacks and no lag on a 46 inch plasma screen?
And really, I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about with regards to 'compatibility issues'. How about the 'compatibility issue' of not being able to play 360 games on my PS3?
Oh really? Have you tried playing System Shock 2 on Windows 7? A lot of early Windows games won't run at all on Win7. And to top it off, there are more titles shared between PS3 and 360 than there are exclusives, so your point is even weaker. Oh, and buying both consoles is still cheaper than buying a dedicated gaming PC.
You and people like you, who settle for mediocrity, guaranteeing that it's catered to. Now PCs just get crappy console ports which were rushed out with minimal testing because, not-so-surprisingly, frat boy Halo gamers are more easily manipulated by changing when you sell your crap than by actually improving the quality of the product.
"Easily manipulated by changing when you sell your crap"- Syntax error: what are you trying to say? Why get angry about people who would rather pay once and get a simple experience with no intrusive DRM (StarForce, Steam etc). Who wants to imperil their PC with all that garbage in order to play games? If my home PC went down, that would mean serious trouble for my work productivity. I'd rather have a dedicated console for games.
PC is great for community and customization, extending the life of a game, etc. but for everything else (integration, stability) it is clearly inferior to consoles, and getting worse.
And you don't even have to leave your house to get the games.
And you'll never be able to resell them. And, if Steam decides to ban you, you lose access to your entire library. Even if you're banned because someone stole your credit card, you have no recourse.
Since everybody has a computer anyway, a $100 graphics card will get you better graphics than a console at a lower price than a console.
On a much tinier screen, with a far less comfortable input device...and did I mention that your games will get progressively slower unless you plunk down $250 every year for a new video card? And if you have a laptop, you can't upgrade at all.
smart ass answer = Unless you're playing a 2D scroller, joysticks are for losers.
Unless you're playing RTS or FPS, keyboards are for losers.
Craigslist is basically run as a public service. They are well within their rights to block something that increases their bandwidth costs and has no benefit for them. Heck, the way the project was described, I'm not sure it had benefits for anyone!
I'm from the South, and I hear people saying "coke" for any soft drink all the time. It's been that way my entire life. "Soda water" is common as well, but not as common as "coke".
Can't these companies get it through their thick skulls that Bluray is a dead on arrival format? That consumers don't see it as a necessary update to their plain DVDs, which they see as good enough even with the advent of HD televisions?
In the words of the Jesus..."Laughable, mang!"
If you think Blu-Ray is a failed format, I wonder what you would have thought of LaserDisc, which sold far less than Blu-Ray ever did, yet persisted as a niche format for 20 years.
Blu-Ray is on the rise, as is HDTV adoption. This holiday season, we're going to see the first $99 Blu-Ray players, which will broaden adoption even further. You might be perfectly happy with your VCR and your 27 inch Trinitron, but there's no need to make up some bitter rant about Blu-Ray has failed in the marketplace. It's just technology-if you don't like it, don't buy it.
I'm even surprised dvds became so popular. The thing that drives me nuts about dvds is the damn menus they put at the start. I just want to watch the movie. I don't want to watch a 30 second un-skipable menu animation and then have to press enter on a remote and then watch another 5 second "leaving the menu" animation. I just want the movie.
Yeah, just because some DVDs (mostly kid's movies) have annoying animations, we should throw the entire format under the bus. I mean, it's not like it's the greatest home movie format of all time. Who cares that you can watch The Third Man or Casablanca at home, in quality unheard of even 15 years ago? There are a few DVDs that have mildly annoying animations! Throw this shit in the trash heap with Beta, I deign it beneath me.
Now, some_guy_88, back to downloading anime that was ripped from a DVD off Bittorrent and for you! Fight the man!
2. Why can't phones, like the iPhone, work with a bluetooth keyboard out of the box?
That would a usability nightmare. The screen's too small for you see if you put it down and type without holding it. A full keyboard is too large for you to hold it and a screen at the same time. A roll-up membrane keyboard would have to hold a bluetooth radio and a power source, making it impractical as well.
I understand that people don't like the touch-screen keyboard (believe me, I hate it too) but a BT keyboard would not be a step up.
DVI and HDMI are the same signal-if you get a DVI-to-HDMI cable you will be able to use the DVI port on your TV. However, sometimes cable boxes think that such cables are non-compliant with HDCP and will intentionally degrade your signal. My brother in law has AT&T Uverse and their STB does not like his plasma TV, even though it has an actual HDMI port. I told him to just use component, it's not worth the effort to mess around with the stuff sometimes.
I also have to say that Dahl's column reads an awful lot like the same old media elitism we've become used to. Only the opinions of professional journalists are wanted, the unwashed masses should just shut up. It was a lot nicer in the world of journalism when you could say any old stupid thing and not get called on it
Or when people were expected to educate themselves and employ certain standards of professionalism when reporting. But that would "elitist," wouldn't it?
Tell me something, when professional journalism completely dies out, what will the bloggers use for original content? Most political blogging is just ignorant Monday-morning quarterbacking about actual articles taken from newspaper websites. It's really no different than what Rush Limbaugh or other talk-radio hosts do. Yes, there are some good weblogs out there with original content, but they are few and far between.
The rise of talk radio, cable networks, the 24-hour-news cycle, and the Internet has been poison to quality journalism. I wouldn't want to axe the Internet, because I think the cable news stuff is even worse, but it's ridiculous to think the opinion of John Q. Blogger who is 3000 miles away is equivalent to a reporter who is standing by as events happen.
Really? I've had that problem with Firewire but never with HDMI. Anyway, if the audio was the problem, why not just use the optical digital out for audio and still use HDMI for video?
I was using component exclusively on my HDTV until I got a newer receiver that could handle HDMI switching-I didn't expect much of a picture upgrade on my 36-inch TV, but the HDMI does look appreciably better, especially on the PS3. The cable box doesn't look different at all.
Would any sane person consent to having their TV outputs shut off just so they could watch a movie a few weeks before the DVD release? I didn't think so.
Also, HDMI's protection has been cracked for years now anyway...it's not like they're preventing piracy. I don't understand this obsession with "the analog hole." You're only going to hurt Mom & Pop who are still connecting their cable box on channel 3 with the RF connector. Everyone else is using HDMI anyway.
Although I understand that argument, I really believe that this type of behaviour is holding back Apple. I think that OSX CAN be a huge threat to Windows, if they allowed it to be installed on any PC.
"Yeah, we can compete directly with Microsoft in the OS market. That's a great idea for long-term profitability." - signed, OS/2, DR-DOS, BeOS, etc.
Anddd....receiving the Slashie for "Worst Car Analogy of the Year, it's...psergui! with "OMG-Porsche changed the gearing of their engines!"
(wild applause)
psergiu: Thank you, thank you very much. As I stand up here and accept my award, I feel like a new windshield wiper on a 1993 Nissan Stanza, if the Stanza's owner had used a lot of Rain-X. What I'm trying to say is that-
Slashdot Mirror
Sometimes I wonder if the food and drug companies policed themselves, rather than the FDA, if they'd be more pro-active and careful. It's one thing for a company to pull a quick one past the government, but it's another if the company's peers' brand name depends on it.
That didn't work too well in the 19th and early 20th century. If you want melamine-tainted food to be the rule rather than the exception, then, by all means, let's go back to unregulated days.
Look, I'm all for making robots and AIs do work, but outsourcing our drug use (and sex, apparently) is just going too far! Leave at least something for us puny humans to enjoy!
Funny, I thought it was the opposite--a way to provide surround over optical without buying a new receiver, since optical doesn't have the bandwidth for surround PCM.
You're entirely correct with regards to optical, but I was talking about audio sent via HDMI. It doesn't need to be bitstreamed, there is plenty of bandwidth to send the full PCM soundtrack.
Linear PCM is the proper and prescribed way to get digital audio out of a Bluray player. That's how the spec is designed. Like nearly all Bluray players, the fat PS3 has always been able to take DTS Master Audio, Dolby True HD, or whatever format and "unzip" them to multichannel PCM. The only exception is older DVDs released in DTS 6.1 or 7.1 (*NOT^ Dolby Digital, which works fine). In those isolated cases, bitstreaming would be superior if you had a 6.1 or 7.1 system.
As for bitstreaming, this is a recent phenomenon, basically invented Dolby, DTS Labs, and the companies that make AV receivers. Basically, it's an excuse to sell you a newer receiver (or possibly, a newer Bluray player). Regardless, the PS3 Slim can bitstream DTS Master Audio and Dolby TrueHD, but doing that disables player sounds and commentary tracks, which should indicate to you that you're not doing something Bluray's designers originally intended.
Ultimately, none of this should matter, since Blurays have enough storage space that the authors could conceivably just dump a raw PCM soundtrack on the discs without any compression. But again, they have to have a reason to keep you upgrading, and audio formats are one way. ;)
You could build a capable HTPC for much less than the cost of a PS3.
Wrong.
In fact, you can get TVs that do it all over the network these days, so it doesn't really matter, the argument is still the same.
That's true, but then you end up paying extra for your TV, and you have to deal with a convoluted and inferior interface.
The first lineup has been announced, it will feature "Comin' Atcha!" "Think Fast!" and "Look Out, I'm Throwing Things At Your Head!"
-with apologies to Michael Kupperman, the hilarious comic artist I stole that joke from
I just bought new computers for me and my son. They were $500, and they can play games easily with graphics as good as any current console. They come with HDMI, so, while I do have them plugged into monitors, I can just as easily plug them into my 50 inch plasma. As for controllers, XBox controllers work on Windows with a free driver, Adapters to use Playstation controllers are cheap and widely available, and XBox360 controllers are officially supported on Windows.
So, you paid $1000, and if you're willing to unfasten them from their desk, scoot them around, and pay for other peripherals that you would have bought anyway, you can sort-of replicate the experience of playing with a $200 console. Well, there goes my argument!
Computers do not get slower each year. There is nothing in them that wears out. What you are think of is that each year, games come out that look better for those that upgraded that year, but the games still look great on previous generation PC hardware. This means that you can choose to continue to use your existing hardware, OR upgrade for better graphics. On consoles, you just stick with the existing hardware, and your games don't look significantly better until new hardware comes out.
Computers, especially computers with Windows, get slower every time you install junk...like say, the matchmaking software that comes with your games, or the DRM that's snooping on your CD-ROM drives, or just any old run of the mill garbage software. They're also prone to spyware and viruses. And "games still look great on previous generation PC hardware"?!! No way, Pollyanna. Eventually, you'll get to the point where PC games require you to turn the resolution down until they look butt ugly, and sometimes they still revert to a slideshow in a crowded room. Each step along that path is a depressing one, as your formerly screaming graphics card ends up obsolete. Whereas with consoles, developers find ways to make the most out of the hardware, and games do end up looking significantly better. Compare early PS2 games to God of War 2 if you want to see an example.
You are right, Steam is a terrible idea and not a selling point. Unfortunately, consoles are not a lot better off in that area.
Totally agree, and they're getting worse...but at least for now, you can buy a disc and not have to worry about a company throwing a switch somewhere and depriving you access to hundreds of dollars worth of your own games on your own hard drive.
The thing to remember is that a console IS a computer. What surprises me is that one of the PC motherboard manufacturers has not taken Linux, licensed a few game engines, built a desktop/dashboard that gives a console feel, dropping it all into one of their all in one motherboards in a livingroom electronics looking case. Someone like Asus, Acer, or even Dell, could in very short order be a major player in the game console market.
Maybe you've heard of this company called "Microsoft." They did that about 8 years ago, and they've lost billions because of it. And now you're suggesting another company without its massive cash flow try it? I don't think that's a great idea, to put it mildly.
No one I know resells their games anyway... PC or Console, if they didn't want to have it they would have rented it.
Well, since no one you know does it, I guess it doesn't happen. I guess that multi-billion dollar business called "Gamestop" must be part of my imagination. And where can you rent PC games?
I have 46 inches of useable space on my desktop, its just a matter of what you plug your screen into...
What does that mean? You have dual monitors? Cool, but that's pretty useless for games...not to mention LCDs still suck compared to CRTs/plasmas in terms of motion and color fidelity. But maybe I'm just too picky.
And 250 a year? Not even close... try 250 everytime a console is release AND you get to play your existing games AND the new games.
You get to play your existing games*.
*Unless you have Vista/Windows 7 and you wanna play early Win95/98 games like System Shock 2. *Or you get a virus. *Or the DRM timebomb in your game goes off and leaves it inaccessible.
Too bad the console makes all your current games garbage....
Ignoring backwards compatibility (which is featured more or less in all 3 major consoles), your console doesn't magically stop working when a new one is released. In fact, the only console I've owned that's ever broken is the Xbox 360. I have every console from the NES to the PS3. My PCs on the other hand, die a lot more often, whether it's due to bitrot or hardware failure, and it takes an injection of cash (or warranty replacement) every time.
(which pretty much just leaves scrollers and sports)
Wow, you really can't think of any other genres. RPGs ring a bell? Puzzle games? Music games? You know what? Never mind, I know you want to get back to Starcraft, so I'll just let you get back. They'e probably destroying your city.
I like PCs because I know that even in 5 years, when your xbox can't even produce enough pixels to cover my 22" monitor and has to upscale its renderings, my PC will be (for the price of a graphics card) right back up at the top of the line for graphics.
How much is "the price of a graphics card?" $200? Or, you could get an Xbox. Plus, if you have a laptop, you'll have to either buy a new laptop or a separate PC, specifically for gaming. And you'll still have to deal with that crushing feeling of your PC getting sloooower and slooooower with every new game you install, unless you keep paying every year.
Not to mention...hunched over a desk at a laggy, overly bright LCD panel is no way to play games. How about sitting comfortably on your couch experiencing deep blacks and no lag on a 46 inch plasma screen?
And really, I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about with regards to 'compatibility issues'. How about the 'compatibility issue' of not being able to play 360 games on my PS3?
Oh really? Have you tried playing System Shock 2 on Windows 7? A lot of early Windows games won't run at all on Win7. And to top it off, there are more titles shared between PS3 and 360 than there are exclusives, so your point is even weaker. Oh, and buying both consoles is still cheaper than buying a dedicated gaming PC.
You and people like you, who settle for mediocrity, guaranteeing that it's catered to. Now PCs just get crappy console ports which were rushed out with minimal testing because, not-so-surprisingly, frat boy Halo gamers are more easily manipulated by changing when you sell your crap than by actually improving the quality of the product.
"Easily manipulated by changing when you sell your crap"- Syntax error: what are you trying to say? Why get angry about people who would rather pay once and get a simple experience with no intrusive DRM (StarForce, Steam etc). Who wants to imperil their PC with all that garbage in order to play games? If my home PC went down, that would mean serious trouble for my work productivity. I'd rather have a dedicated console for games.
PC is great for community and customization, extending the life of a game, etc. but for everything else (integration, stability) it is clearly inferior to consoles, and getting worse.
And you don't even have to leave your house to get the games.
And you'll never be able to resell them. And, if Steam decides to ban you, you lose access to your entire library. Even if you're banned because someone stole your credit card, you have no recourse.
Since everybody has a computer anyway, a $100 graphics card will get you better graphics than a console at a lower price than a console.
On a much tinier screen, with a far less comfortable input device...and did I mention that your games will get progressively slower unless you plunk down $250 every year for a new video card? And if you have a laptop, you can't upgrade at all.
smart ass answer = Unless you're playing a 2D scroller, joysticks are for losers.
Unless you're playing RTS or FPS, keyboards are for losers.
If she has any level of discreteness, then certainly she be divided into a single entity!
Craigslist is basically run as a public service. They are well within their rights to block something that increases their bandwidth costs and has no benefit for them. Heck, the way the project was described, I'm not sure it had benefits for anyone!
Down south if we mean generic we say soda
I'm from the South, and I hear people saying "coke" for any soft drink all the time. It's been that way my entire life. "Soda water" is common as well, but not as common as "coke".
Ingmar Bergman, Akira Kurosawa and Krzystof Kieslowski don't look better in 1080p.
Actually, film resolution is higher than 1080p, so yes, they do.
And Criterion is just starting to put out BluRays...which is awesome news for film majors and stuck up idiots like me!
Can't these companies get it through their thick skulls that Bluray is a dead on arrival format? That consumers don't see it as a necessary update to their plain DVDs, which they see as good enough even with the advent of HD televisions?
In the words of the Jesus..."Laughable, mang!"
If you think Blu-Ray is a failed format, I wonder what you would have thought of LaserDisc, which sold far less than Blu-Ray ever did, yet persisted as a niche format for 20 years.
Blu-Ray is on the rise, as is HDTV adoption. This holiday season, we're going to see the first $99 Blu-Ray players, which will broaden adoption even further. You might be perfectly happy with your VCR and your 27 inch Trinitron, but there's no need to make up some bitter rant about Blu-Ray has failed in the marketplace. It's just technology-if you don't like it, don't buy it.
I'm even surprised dvds became so popular. The thing that drives me nuts about dvds is the damn menus they put at the start. I just want to watch the movie. I don't want to watch a 30 second un-skipable menu animation and then have to press enter on a remote and then watch another 5 second "leaving the menu" animation. I just want the movie.
Yeah, just because some DVDs (mostly kid's movies) have annoying animations, we should throw the entire format under the bus. I mean, it's not like it's the greatest home movie format of all time. Who cares that you can watch The Third Man or Casablanca at home, in quality unheard of even 15 years ago? There are a few DVDs that have mildly annoying animations! Throw this shit in the trash heap with Beta, I deign it beneath me.
Now, some_guy_88, back to downloading anime that was ripped from a DVD off Bittorrent and for you! Fight the man!
Two words for you: Dell DJ.
That was the shit, bro!
2. Why can't phones, like the iPhone, work with a bluetooth keyboard out of the box?
That would a usability nightmare. The screen's too small for you see if you put it down and type without holding it. A full keyboard is too large for you to hold it and a screen at the same time. A roll-up membrane keyboard would have to hold a bluetooth radio and a power source, making it impractical as well.
I understand that people don't like the touch-screen keyboard (believe me, I hate it too) but a BT keyboard would not be a step up.
DVI and HDMI are the same signal-if you get a DVI-to-HDMI cable you will be able to use the DVI port on your TV. However, sometimes cable boxes think that such cables are non-compliant with HDCP and will intentionally degrade your signal. My brother in law has AT&T Uverse and their STB does not like his plasma TV, even though it has an actual HDMI port. I told him to just use component, it's not worth the effort to mess around with the stuff sometimes.
So apparently trite + cynical == insightful. Did not know that.
I also have to say that Dahl's column reads an awful lot like the same old media elitism we've become used to. Only the opinions of professional journalists are wanted, the unwashed masses should just shut up. It was a lot nicer in the world of journalism when you could say any old stupid thing and not get called on it
Or when people were expected to educate themselves and employ certain standards of professionalism when reporting. But that would "elitist," wouldn't it?
Tell me something, when professional journalism completely dies out, what will the bloggers use for original content? Most political blogging is just ignorant Monday-morning quarterbacking about actual articles taken from newspaper websites. It's really no different than what Rush Limbaugh or other talk-radio hosts do. Yes, there are some good weblogs out there with original content, but they are few and far between.
The rise of talk radio, cable networks, the 24-hour-news cycle, and the Internet has been poison to quality journalism. I wouldn't want to axe the Internet, because I think the cable news stuff is even worse, but it's ridiculous to think the opinion of John Q. Blogger who is 3000 miles away is equivalent to a reporter who is standing by as events happen.
Really? I've had that problem with Firewire but never with HDMI. Anyway, if the audio was the problem, why not just use the optical digital out for audio and still use HDMI for video?
I was using component exclusively on my HDTV until I got a newer receiver that could handle HDMI switching-I didn't expect much of a picture upgrade on my 36-inch TV, but the HDMI does look appreciably better, especially on the PS3. The cable box doesn't look different at all.
Would any sane person consent to having their TV outputs shut off just so they could watch a movie a few weeks before the DVD release? I didn't think so.
Also, HDMI's protection has been cracked for years now anyway...it's not like they're preventing piracy. I don't understand this obsession with "the analog hole." You're only going to hurt Mom & Pop who are still connecting their cable box on channel 3 with the RF connector. Everyone else is using HDMI anyway.
Although I understand that argument, I really believe that this type of behaviour is holding back Apple. I think that OSX CAN be a huge threat to Windows, if they allowed it to be installed on any PC.
"Yeah, we can compete directly with Microsoft in the OS market. That's a great idea for long-term profitability." - signed, OS/2, DR-DOS, BeOS, etc.
Anddd....receiving the Slashie for "Worst Car Analogy of the Year, it's...psergui! with "OMG-Porsche changed the gearing of their engines!"
(wild applause)
psergiu: Thank you, thank you very much. As I stand up here and accept my award, I feel like a new windshield wiper on a 1993 Nissan Stanza, if the Stanza's owner had used a lot of Rain-X. What I'm trying to say is that-