Wait, so under the strictest, most strenuous interpretation of this proposed law, if I google "adobe cs3 download" I'm risking a prison sentence?
How far do they want to take this bullshit?
The thing about the use of illegal software in a scenario where someone gets injured, is tenuous at best. What about this scenario: An auto mechanic needs to update his fully licensed copy of the diagnostic software he's been using in his auto shop. His system is out of date and he can't afford the upgrade for another 2 months, so he borrows and installs a copy of the update from a colleague, with the intent being he'll buy the legal upgrade as soon as he can afford to, in two months. Now, someone brings a car in for maintenance, and the software correctly diagnoses a problem, and the mechanic fixes it. But, the mechanic makes a mistake, a human error, and he doesn't fix the problem properly, which the next day causes the car to break down on the freeway, causing it to get into a crash and the driver is injured. Under normal circumstances, the mechanic would be negligent and could be sued by the client. With this proposed new law, he's now criminally negligent and can face life imprisonment, just because he used warez. His colleague would face the same charges, because he "distributed" the software.
Personally, I download on average around 200 to 300GB a month, with my biggest month ever being over 640GB and several gigs of upload as well, and I have never heard so much as a peep out of my cable provider (Time Warner / Road Runner) about my bandwidth use. So that makes me wonder if those ISP's are dramatically overselling their capabilities, or if those who've been warned have been downloading terabytes of data on a monthly basis...
Whatever the case may be, this is nothing new. I've heard these stories since the first offers of "unlimited download" began in the late 90s.
Well, invading Kuwait wasn't any worse than killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's, but, as George H. W. Bush said in his national address on the matter: "Access to Persian Gulf oil and the security of key friendly states in the area are vital to U.S. national security." So, as before, it was still all about OUR interests. If Kuwait didn't have oil, we wouldn't have cared one way or the other, so my original point still stands.
When I said "Socialism does not exist in Africa", I was of course referring to real "theoretical" socialism, which has never been successfully practiced anywhere. I'm sure there are countries in Africa that practice some form of it.
Socialism does not exist in Africa. You're confusing Socialism and Fascism, of which there is plenty, in many forms, in many nations in Africa. Fascism does not have a social ideology other than centralized, dictatorial control over people. It can take hold in nations governed by socialism and capitalism alike. However, to be fair, the so-called Socialism which has been practiced in the world, has an easier path for Fascism to follow, as the centralized control mechanism is already in place.
Capitalism IN Africa is not what is killing its people, but rather the disposition at which capitalism places African nations with little in the form of natural resources to exploit and export.
We, as a wealthy nation, don't bother ourselves with an African nation unless it produces something we want. In fact, we have no problem buying from them, as long as it's cheap and profitable for us (e.g. the monstrous diamond industry). Conversely, if it has nothing to offer us, we couldn't care less even if their illegal government is committing genocide against its own people (e.g. Darfur). No, that doesn't bother us. What does bother us however, is a crime we didn't care about when happened 30 years ago because at the time ignoring it suited our business interests, but now we do because the dictator who did it wasn't co-operating any more, and was harming our business relationships in the region. I speak of course of Iraq's Saddam Hussein gassing the Kurds 30 years ago. We not only "forgave" him, we propped him up, because he was co-operative and good for our business interests. When he changed his mind, we killed him and took over his country. But I digress...
Now, to bring this tangent back to the original discussion, I think what Stallman is doing is admirable. He's bringing free software into nations where the average annual income is less than the average monthly income for a minimum wage earner in the United States, sometimes even far less. Does that mean those people should simply be left behind on the technological ladder? If you're a giant corporation, your answer would be yes, because it would keep you at the top. If you're a giant corporation like Microsoft, they're an opportunity. A "gift" of say, 3000 Microsoft Office licenses, looks good on paper, can even be tax deductable, and yet at the same time, in order for the recipient to actually use them, they have to shell out for those Windows licenses. That means, your gift was actually a trojan horse designed to fatten your bottom line. Stallman however, doesn't have a bottom line, although I'm sure he gets paid for his time. He doesn't make money off software licenses, and he doesn't make money as the shareholder of a major software company. That means he's actually doing this because he believes in it, which is admirable.
While I understand that communism has a bad name, on paper it is a beautiful thing. But only on paper, as it doesn't work when humans are added to the equation. If only we could somehow hold on to the "equal opportunity" part and the "you deserve to get what you need" part of socialism, while throwing away the "you can't have more than that - we will decide what you need" part that has always been added to it where it's been practiced, while at the same time holding on to the "excel if you can" part of capitalism, we'd have a much better world. Of course, I also know that I will never see that world, as it would actually require us to stop being so damn selfish all the time.
I've had great success with StoreGrid. I use the free version with a $20 plugin that allows "open file" backups.
I have it set to a continuous incremental backup of my most vital files, plus a weekly full backup, storing two whole backups at any given time, on a second drive, which in turn gets cloned to a mirror drive (yes, I've lost data before, so I'm paranoid).
Wrong. There is no comparison between temporary anger/frustration and the continuous urge that drives the population boom. It's the essence of natural selection. If you're horny, you're more likely to procreate, and thus your gene pool lives on.
Sure, abstinence is the only 100% effective way of preventing STD's, but teaching that and nothing else, is an extraordinarly dumb thing to do, because it goes against our natural instincts. We are born with the need for sex, and when it awakens it tends to go a little nuts. Abstinence only education can lead directly to teen pregnancies and the transmission of std's, because kids are not given an alternative method of protection, and in fact statistics show that it simply doesn't work in any way shape or form. Ignorance is not protection.
Your gun lesson analogy is a bad one. Firing guns is not a natural urge written into our genes. ALL teens have sexual urges, but only a handful of nutcases have the urge to shoot their classmates. Thus, your argument is a red herring. That being said, it wouldn't hurt to have an alternative method of protection against guns, such as trigger-locks, and not rely solely on the "don't do it because I said so" method (which incidentally is the same one used in abstinence only education).
A more proper analogy would be: You have a swimming pool in your back yard. You can tell your kids not to go in it all you want, but one day, when you're not looking, they will, and when that time comes, wouldn't it be safer if they've been taught how to swim?
That's about as stupid as teaching abstinence only as the only way to fight STD's.
Interestingly, the advice given is almost the same too: don't plug in...
People are doing it and kids will do it, so instead of closing your eyes and yelling "don't do it", you should at least show them how to use protection first.
Your eyes notice flicker in fine text due to interlacing, as it often falls across only two lines in which case it will seem to "wobble" or it falls on only one line of resolution, in which case it is refreshed only 30 times per second and not 60, thereby having noticable flicker.
Fast motion in the frame, either of the subjects or the camera tends to hide flickering, this is correct. A still frame is more likely to have visible flickering as your eyes are able to adjust to the static image, so any variation in brightness or movement will become far more visible.
As for the quote you pulled, it is completely accurate, and is not what your post was referring to. But I'm not about to enter a pissing contest or engage in hair-splitting.
No, you're mistaken. Sure, it only shows 540 lines "at a time", but the next 540 lines are not the same 540 lines, but the ones in between the previous 540 lines, making up the full 1080 line display. Your eyes don't work fast enough to see that one is off while the other is on, and the chemicals on the inside of the CRT keep their "glow" long enough to minimize or even eliminate flicker. Non-CRT sets, like dlp/plasma/lcd/d-ila/sxrd work a little differently and showing interlaced footage in a progressive manner can lead to visible "combing" unless the set de-interlaces, but I won't go into that here.
1080i has 1080 lines of resolution, but like your old standard definition television, it refreshes every other line alternately. So, the first half of the refresh mode (1/60th of a second) refreshes lines 1,3,5,7 etc (fields a) and the other half refreshes lines 2,4,6,8 etc (fields b). So that while it refreshes 60 times a second, it only shows you 30 full frames. 720p conversely, shows you 60 full frames of 720 lines in sequence, per second.
If it's shot at 1080/30p, it still gets broadcast as 1080i, and you still see 30 full 1080 line frames per second. If it's shot at 1080/60i, it gets broadcast as 1080i, and you see 60 "half-frames" per second, because the movement of the subject changes between fields a and b. If it's shot at 720/60p, it usually gets broadcast as 720p, but some stations only broadcast 1080i regardless of source, in which case each set of 720 lines would be interpolated to 60 full frames of 1080 lines, and then only half of each gets broadcast. Still looks great, but it's not as detailed. If a station broadcasts at 720p regardless of source, it gets a little complicated. 1080i sources are basically converted to 540p and bobbed (fields b are moved up one line so the image doesn't shake up and down), and then gets stretched to 720p. It retains all the information of the 540 lines, but doesn't have as much detail as 720 lines, obviously. Now, if the 1080i source was shot 1080/30p and gets broadcast at 720p, each frame needs to be downsized, and then repeated, to make up the missing 30 frames from the 60p signal. Additionally, if a movie comes in a 1080/24p source, it gets broadcast either as 1080i with 3:2 pulldown, or it gets broadcast as 720p with 2:3 frames (3:2 pulldown repeats fields, 2:3 frames repeats frames) in order to bring it up to 60 fields (for 1080i) or 60 frames (for 720p).
Confused yet? It's not that hard when you understand why it is the way it is.
In the case of the PS3, it's pretty lame that 720p gets converted down to 480p, but since it's a slightly simpler process (1 full frame = 1 full frame vs. 1 full frame = 2 half frames), I can't really blame them for using it on the launch games. I have an older CRT HDTV that only does 1080i/480p/480i and can't do 720p, so of course I'm disappointed, but all good things to those who wait.
Fuck you, asswipe and mind your own fucking business. As long as you're an anonymous coward, I don't give a flying fuck what you think or what you say. Register, at least then I can put you on my enemies list, asshole.
This is such crap. IQ has nothing to do with BMI whatsoever. My IQ puts me in the top 0.001% of the population according to every IQ test I've ever taken, from various groups and organisations including MENSA, but according to these silly Frenchmen, I should be near the bottom because of my body insulation.
Why is the "muscleheads" stereotype that of a physically fit man with the IQ of a turnip? Why is the "geek" stereotype that of a physically unfit man with a genius IQ?
Besides, if physical fitness is such an indicator of intelligence, then how do they explain the "fittest" US President ever, George W. Bush?
How can a domain name be "immoral" and whose morals are we going by?
I think it's stupid that some people can't handle the english language in all its glory, and think that some specific words are "bad" or "unacceptable" or "immoral".
Personally, I've never understood how a word can be bad, but the meaning of it is OK. Example: you can say "biatch" and "a-hole" on the radio, but you can't say "bitch" or "asshole". But since the meaning is exactly the same, the censorship is meaningless and only serves to sanitize the words, not the sentiment behind them. In other words: it's all total "bullshit" (you can't say that on radio or tv, but you can say BS, even though the meaning is exactly the same and everyone knows what you mean). This whole thing is childish beyond comprehension. The inmates have long since taken over the asylum. I'm just glad I'm still in my room, albeit not a rubber one.
The examples cited are quite funny, and unlike some here, I think comparing "murder.ie" and "porn.ie" is a great example of what gets accepted and what gets rejected, because it deomnstrates that apparently the "morals" of the body responsible for deciding those things are that the graphic visual depiction of consenting adults engaging in sexual activities is immoral, but the willful and premeditated taking of a human life is somehow more morally acceptable.
I wonder if a chicken farmer can register "cock.ie", and if he can, shouldn't anybody else have the same ability? This is government censorship, pure and simple. Any time you give the government the ability to decide what is and is not acceptable to say or write, it's a very slippery slope that inevitable leads to the censorship of voices critical of the government. I wonder if you can register "TheIrishAreAllDrunks.ie" or "BertieAhernIsAnIdiot.ie" (if not, you can always register them as.com and host outside Ireland - so this kind of policy only serves to move money out of the Irish economy).
The "jews-out" someone came up with is a brilliant example of how easy it is to manipulate people into giving up their rights. Just throw out the nazi scare and people are willing to do a lot of stupid things, including the acceptance of censorship. Freedom of speech means nothing if you limit it only to speech with which you agree. Yes, that means nazis and other morons have the same right as you or I to say what they want. ISP's don't have to host their sites if they don't want to, but the government should never, ever be given the power to decide what is and isn't acceptable speech. What is deemed acceptable by you today, may be unacceptable by someone else tomorrow, and that someone just might be in the position to censor your speech.
With freedom comes excess. If you're not willing to accept the excess, you don't truly believe in freedom. I'd rather let neo-nazis enjoy their freedom of speech, than give the government the power to censor mine.
It's an old racing game with lots of vehicles and tracks and game modes... my favorite: free roam. You can download cars and levels others have created (some are pretty great) or design your own cars and levels (with 3rd party tools).
The graphics aren't great, but for a car nut like me, thrashing around in ANY kind of vehicle, even on the same track, can be loads of fun and is great for taking your mind off the daily grind. Even if you're just roaming and seeing how many ways you can wreck your vehicle.
OK, you used the words "predisposition to violence". I believe you've unwittingly hit the nail on the head by bringing that up.
Violent games or movies do not "cause" violence. The cause is the person with a predisposition to violence. Violent games or movies do not cause harm in the sense you are implying (and, by the way, good job in throwing out a two-fer, a strawman argument and an ad hominem right off the bat in an effort to stifle any arguments).
At most, violent games and movies can give new ideas to those with a predisposition to violence.
Personally, I grew up watching violent movies long before I was "supposed to" and I've played violent video games since the original Wolfenstein. I do not have any longing to harm another human being (with the possible exception of a few politicians).
Personally, I believe playing cops & robbers or cowboys & indians with replicas of actual weapons does far more damage to a child, especially since your victim always gets up totally unhurt afterwards, unlike in movies and games where you get to see the repercussions of violence.
I just wish lazy lawyers, lazy parents and lazy politicians would focus on actual issues and not chase windmills like "violence in movies and video games". The ultimate responsibility lies with the individual, and by proxy with that individual's parents.
Oh, and by the way, it's "write off" not "right off". If you're going to act all superior, at least spell it right.
I guess I must be biased, unreasoning and ignorant, seeing as I dared disagree with your assessments.
This is not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with the "content" of a film. This is a matter of the filmmakers sticking to the truth when dealing with a subject matter of this importance. This is a matter of the filmmakers not claiming the film is based on the 9/11 Commission Report, when it clearly contradicts it. This is a matter of ABC taking responsibility for serving the public trust, which is a qualification for their free use of OUR airwaves. Deliberately misleading and lying to your audience to score political points, is not serving the public interest, nor is it worthy of the public's trust. THAT is why lawmakers raised the licensing issue. (And by the way, you can't revoke a "network's" broadcast license, as it doesn't have one. Only the affiliates have broadcast licenses, so no lawmaker can shut down ABC as a whole, they'd have to go after each individual affiliate - which won't happen).
Remember the hoopla a few years ago when The Reagans was supposed to air on CBS? Republicans made such a major stink about it that CBS caved and didn't air it (it played on Showtime instead, which is also owned by Viacom). So don't think for a moment that objecting to a TV mini-series is a "leftist" thing to do. The funny thing... The Reagans was more factually accurate than The Path to 9/11.
I frankly don't see anything in your comment that could be considered an actual argument... more like regurgitation of Limbaugh's or Novak's talking points. But I could be wrong. It could just be your own mis-informed opinion. Somehow I doubt it. Republicans are renowned sheep.
You do have a point, but only two of the three examples you cited can be considered differing opinions.
Democrats vs. Republicans: two different ideologies. Open Software vs. Proprietary: two different ideologies.
Evolution vs. Creationism: science vs. fantasy. Of these three, that one doesn't belong on the list, as it's not a matter of opinion, but rather people who understand science, vs. people who either don't understand science or simply ignore it in favor of fiction that better suits their ideology.
However, I do agree with your point about how some people like to throw grenades and sit back and watch the fallout.
Slashdot Mirror
I was making a completely different point.
Wait, so under the strictest, most strenuous interpretation of this proposed law, if I google "adobe cs3 download" I'm risking a prison sentence?
How far do they want to take this bullshit?
The thing about the use of illegal software in a scenario where someone gets injured, is tenuous at best.
What about this scenario: An auto mechanic needs to update his fully licensed copy of the diagnostic software he's been using in his auto shop.
His system is out of date and he can't afford the upgrade for another 2 months, so he borrows and installs a copy of the update from a colleague, with the intent being he'll buy the legal upgrade as soon as he can afford to, in two months.
Now, someone brings a car in for maintenance, and the software correctly diagnoses a problem, and the mechanic fixes it.
But, the mechanic makes a mistake, a human error, and he doesn't fix the problem properly, which the next day causes the car to break down on the freeway, causing it to get into a crash and the driver is injured.
Under normal circumstances, the mechanic would be negligent and could be sued by the client.
With this proposed new law, he's now criminally negligent and can face life imprisonment, just because he used warez. His colleague would face the same charges, because he "distributed" the software.
I think this is just a bit absurd.
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.
Yeah, I know it's old, but I still like, so sue me.
Personally, I download on average around 200 to 300GB a month, with my biggest month ever being over 640GB and several gigs of upload as well, and I have never heard so much as a peep out of my cable provider (Time Warner / Road Runner) about my bandwidth use.
So that makes me wonder if those ISP's are dramatically overselling their capabilities, or if those who've been warned have been downloading terabytes of data on a monthly basis...
Whatever the case may be, this is nothing new. I've heard these stories since the first offers of "unlimited download" began in the late 90s.
Well, invading Kuwait wasn't any worse than killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's, but, as George H. W. Bush said in his national address on the matter: "Access to Persian Gulf oil and the security of key friendly states in the area are vital to U.S. national security."
So, as before, it was still all about OUR interests. If Kuwait didn't have oil, we wouldn't have cared one way or the other, so my original point still stands.
Update... should have used that preview button...
When I said "Socialism does not exist in Africa", I was of course referring to real "theoretical" socialism, which has never been successfully practiced anywhere. I'm sure there are countries in Africa that practice some form of it.
Socialism does not exist in Africa. You're confusing Socialism and Fascism, of which there is plenty, in many forms, in many nations in Africa. Fascism does not have a social ideology other than centralized, dictatorial control over people. It can take hold in nations governed by socialism and capitalism alike. However, to be fair, the so-called Socialism which has been practiced in the world, has an easier path for Fascism to follow, as the centralized control mechanism is already in place.
Capitalism IN Africa is not what is killing its people, but rather the disposition at which capitalism places African nations with little in the form of natural resources to exploit and export.
We, as a wealthy nation, don't bother ourselves with an African nation unless it produces something we want. In fact, we have no problem buying from them, as long as it's cheap and profitable for us (e.g. the monstrous diamond industry). Conversely, if it has nothing to offer us, we couldn't care less even if their illegal government is committing genocide against its own people (e.g. Darfur).
No, that doesn't bother us. What does bother us however, is a crime we didn't care about when happened 30 years ago because at the time ignoring it suited our business interests, but now we do because the dictator who did it wasn't co-operating any more, and was harming our business relationships in the region. I speak of course of Iraq's Saddam Hussein gassing the Kurds 30 years ago. We not only "forgave" him, we propped him up, because he was co-operative and good for our business interests. When he changed his mind, we killed him and took over his country. But I digress...
Now, to bring this tangent back to the original discussion, I think what Stallman is doing is admirable.
He's bringing free software into nations where the average annual income is less than the average monthly income for a minimum wage earner in the United States, sometimes even far less. Does that mean those people should simply be left behind on the technological ladder? If you're a giant corporation, your answer would be yes, because it would keep you at the top. If you're a giant corporation like Microsoft, they're an opportunity. A "gift" of say, 3000 Microsoft Office licenses, looks good on paper, can even be tax deductable, and yet at the same time, in order for the recipient to actually use them, they have to shell out for those Windows licenses. That means, your gift was actually a trojan horse designed to fatten your bottom line.
Stallman however, doesn't have a bottom line, although I'm sure he gets paid for his time. He doesn't make money off software licenses, and he doesn't make money as the shareholder of a major software company. That means he's actually doing this because he believes in it, which is admirable.
While I understand that communism has a bad name, on paper it is a beautiful thing. But only on paper, as it doesn't work when humans are added to the equation. If only we could somehow hold on to the "equal opportunity" part and the "you deserve to get what you need" part of socialism, while throwing away the "you can't have more than that - we will decide what you need" part that has always been added to it where it's been practiced, while at the same time holding on to the "excel if you can" part of capitalism, we'd have a much better world. Of course, I also know that I will never see that world, as it would actually require us to stop being so damn selfish all the time.
I've had great success with StoreGrid.
I use the free version with a $20 plugin that allows "open file" backups.
I have it set to a continuous incremental backup of my most vital files, plus a weekly full backup, storing two whole backups at any given time, on a second drive, which in turn gets cloned to a mirror drive (yes, I've lost data before, so I'm paranoid).
Wrong.
There is no comparison between temporary anger/frustration and the continuous urge that drives the population boom. It's the essence of natural selection. If you're horny, you're more likely to procreate, and thus your gene pool lives on.
OK, now you're just being silly.
Sure, abstinence is the only 100% effective way of preventing STD's, but teaching that and nothing else, is an extraordinarly dumb thing to do, because it goes against our natural instincts. We are born with the need for sex, and when it awakens it tends to go a little nuts. Abstinence only education can lead directly to teen pregnancies and the transmission of std's, because kids are not given an alternative method of protection, and in fact statistics show that it simply doesn't work in any way shape or form. Ignorance is not protection.
Your gun lesson analogy is a bad one. Firing guns is not a natural urge written into our genes.
ALL teens have sexual urges, but only a handful of nutcases have the urge to shoot their classmates.
Thus, your argument is a red herring.
That being said, it wouldn't hurt to have an alternative method of protection against guns, such as trigger-locks, and not rely solely on the "don't do it because I said so" method (which incidentally is the same one used in abstinence only education).
A more proper analogy would be:
You have a swimming pool in your back yard. You can tell your kids not to go in it all you want, but one day, when you're not looking, they will, and when that time comes, wouldn't it be safer if they've been taught how to swim?
That's about as stupid as teaching abstinence only as the only way to fight STD's.
Interestingly, the advice given is almost the same too: don't plug in...
People are doing it and kids will do it, so instead of closing your eyes and yelling "don't do it", you should at least show them how to use protection first.
The HV10 has a MSRP of $1350. If they're selling for $999 (plus s/h and tax), that means they're skimping on accessories and/or warranties.
The HD1A just barely even qualifies as consumer HD, seeing as it records to MPEG4. That one would be considered "one for the kids".
But your point is well taken.
Where are these guys shopping?
Your eyes notice flicker in fine text due to interlacing, as it often falls across only two lines in which case it will seem to "wobble" or it falls on only one line of resolution, in which case it is refreshed only 30 times per second and not 60, thereby having noticable flicker.
Fast motion in the frame, either of the subjects or the camera tends to hide flickering, this is correct.
A still frame is more likely to have visible flickering as your eyes are able to adjust to the static image, so any variation in brightness or movement will become far more visible.
As for the quote you pulled, it is completely accurate, and is not what your post was referring to. But I'm not about to enter a pissing contest or engage in hair-splitting.
No, you're mistaken.
Sure, it only shows 540 lines "at a time", but the next 540 lines are not the same 540 lines, but the ones in between the previous 540 lines, making up the full 1080 line display. Your eyes don't work fast enough to see that one is off while the other is on, and the chemicals on the inside of the CRT keep their "glow" long enough to minimize or even eliminate flicker. Non-CRT sets, like dlp/plasma/lcd/d-ila/sxrd work a little differently and showing interlaced footage in a progressive manner can lead to visible "combing" unless the set de-interlaces, but I won't go into that here.
1080i has 1080 lines of resolution, but like your old standard definition television, it refreshes every other line alternately. So, the first half of the refresh mode (1/60th of a second) refreshes lines 1,3,5,7 etc (fields a) and the other half refreshes lines 2,4,6,8 etc (fields b). So that while it refreshes 60 times a second, it only shows you 30 full frames.
720p conversely, shows you 60 full frames of 720 lines in sequence, per second.
If it's shot at 1080/30p, it still gets broadcast as 1080i, and you still see 30 full 1080 line frames per second.
If it's shot at 1080/60i, it gets broadcast as 1080i, and you see 60 "half-frames" per second, because the movement of the subject changes between fields a and b.
If it's shot at 720/60p, it usually gets broadcast as 720p, but some stations only broadcast 1080i regardless of source, in which case each set of 720 lines would be interpolated to 60 full frames of 1080 lines, and then only half of each gets broadcast. Still looks great, but it's not as detailed.
If a station broadcasts at 720p regardless of source, it gets a little complicated. 1080i sources are basically converted to 540p and bobbed (fields b are moved up one line so the image doesn't shake up and down), and then gets stretched to 720p. It retains all the information of the 540 lines, but doesn't have as much detail as 720 lines, obviously. Now, if the 1080i source was shot 1080/30p and gets broadcast at 720p, each frame needs to be downsized, and then repeated, to make up the missing 30 frames from the 60p signal.
Additionally, if a movie comes in a 1080/24p source, it gets broadcast either as 1080i with 3:2 pulldown, or it gets broadcast as 720p with 2:3 frames (3:2 pulldown repeats fields, 2:3 frames repeats frames) in order to bring it up to 60 fields (for 1080i) or 60 frames (for 720p).
Confused yet?
It's not that hard when you understand why it is the way it is.
In the case of the PS3, it's pretty lame that 720p gets converted down to 480p, but since it's a slightly simpler process (1 full frame = 1 full frame vs. 1 full frame = 2 half frames), I can't really blame them for using it on the launch games.
I have an older CRT HDTV that only does 1080i/480p/480i and can't do 720p, so of course I'm disappointed, but all good things to those who wait.
Fuck you, asswipe and mind your own fucking business.
As long as you're an anonymous coward, I don't give a flying fuck what you think or what you say.
Register, at least then I can put you on my enemies list, asshole.
OK, who's the fucking moron who modded this as "Troll"?
I was being perfectly serious.
Maybe some knuckledragger didn't like that I mentioned the idiot in chief. Well, tough noogies.
This is such crap.
IQ has nothing to do with BMI whatsoever.
My IQ puts me in the top 0.001% of the population according to every IQ test I've ever taken, from various groups and organisations including MENSA, but according to these silly Frenchmen, I should be near the bottom because of my body insulation.
Why is the "muscleheads" stereotype that of a physically fit man with the IQ of a turnip?
Why is the "geek" stereotype that of a physically unfit man with a genius IQ?
Besides, if physical fitness is such an indicator of intelligence, then how do they explain the "fittest" US President ever, George W. Bush?
I was asking a rhetorical question.
The answer is different depending on the time and place.
How can a domain name be "immoral" and whose morals are we going by?
.com and host outside Ireland - so this kind of policy only serves to move money out of the Irish economy).
I think it's stupid that some people can't handle the english language in all its glory, and think that some specific words are "bad" or "unacceptable" or "immoral".
Personally, I've never understood how a word can be bad, but the meaning of it is OK. Example: you can say "biatch" and "a-hole" on the radio, but you can't say "bitch" or "asshole".
But since the meaning is exactly the same, the censorship is meaningless and only serves to sanitize the words, not the sentiment behind them.
In other words: it's all total "bullshit" (you can't say that on radio or tv, but you can say BS, even though the meaning is exactly the same and everyone knows what you mean).
This whole thing is childish beyond comprehension. The inmates have long since taken over the asylum. I'm just glad I'm still in my room, albeit not a rubber one.
The examples cited are quite funny, and unlike some here, I think comparing "murder.ie" and "porn.ie" is a great example of what gets accepted and what gets rejected, because it deomnstrates that apparently the "morals" of the body responsible for deciding those things are that the graphic visual depiction of consenting adults engaging in sexual activities is immoral, but the willful and premeditated taking of a human life is somehow more morally acceptable.
I wonder if a chicken farmer can register "cock.ie", and if he can, shouldn't anybody else have the same ability? This is government censorship, pure and simple. Any time you give the government the ability to decide what is and is not acceptable to say or write, it's a very slippery slope that inevitable leads to the censorship of voices critical of the government. I wonder if you can register "TheIrishAreAllDrunks.ie" or "BertieAhernIsAnIdiot.ie" (if not, you can always register them as
The "jews-out" someone came up with is a brilliant example of how easy it is to manipulate people into giving up their rights. Just throw out the nazi scare and people are willing to do a lot of stupid things, including the acceptance of censorship.
Freedom of speech means nothing if you limit it only to speech with which you agree. Yes, that means nazis and other morons have the same right as you or I to say what they want. ISP's don't have to host their sites if they don't want to, but the government should never, ever be given the power to decide what is and isn't acceptable speech. What is deemed acceptable by you today, may be unacceptable by someone else tomorrow, and that someone just might be in the position to censor your speech.
With freedom comes excess. If you're not willing to accept the excess, you don't truly believe in freedom.
I'd rather let neo-nazis enjoy their freedom of speech, than give the government the power to censor mine.
It's an old racing game with lots of vehicles and tracks and game modes... my favorite: free roam.
You can download cars and levels others have created (some are pretty great) or design your own cars and levels (with 3rd party tools).
The graphics aren't great, but for a car nut like me, thrashing around in ANY kind of vehicle, even on the same track, can be loads of fun and is great for taking your mind off the daily grind. Even if you're just roaming and seeing how many ways you can wreck your vehicle.
OK, you used the words "predisposition to violence".
I believe you've unwittingly hit the nail on the head by bringing that up.
Violent games or movies do not "cause" violence. The cause is the person with a predisposition to violence.
Violent games or movies do not cause harm in the sense you are implying (and, by the way, good job in throwing out a two-fer, a strawman argument and an ad hominem right off the bat in an effort to stifle any arguments).
At most, violent games and movies can give new ideas to those with a predisposition to violence.
Personally, I grew up watching violent movies long before I was "supposed to" and I've played violent video games since the original Wolfenstein. I do not have any longing to harm another human being (with the possible exception of a few politicians).
Personally, I believe playing cops & robbers or cowboys & indians with replicas of actual weapons does far more damage to a child, especially since your victim always gets up totally unhurt afterwards, unlike in movies and games where you get to see the repercussions of violence.
I just wish lazy lawyers, lazy parents and lazy politicians would focus on actual issues and not chase windmills like "violence in movies and video games". The ultimate responsibility lies with the individual, and by proxy with that individual's parents.
Oh, and by the way, it's "write off" not "right off". If you're going to act all superior, at least spell it right.
I guess I must be biased, unreasoning and ignorant, seeing as I dared disagree with your assessments.
Bad argument.
You know going in that a Michael Moore movie is NOT going to be subjective.
If he had claimed his movie was based on the 9/11 Committee I would have had problems with that as well.
As for the second line you wrote. Where exactly are you offering an argument in response to the line of mine you quoted?
This is not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with the "content" of a film.
This is a matter of the filmmakers sticking to the truth when dealing with a subject matter of this importance.
This is a matter of the filmmakers not claiming the film is based on the 9/11 Commission Report, when it clearly contradicts it.
This is a matter of ABC taking responsibility for serving the public trust, which is a qualification for their free use of OUR airwaves. Deliberately misleading and lying to your audience to score political points, is not serving the public interest, nor is it worthy of the public's trust. THAT is why lawmakers raised the licensing issue. (And by the way, you can't revoke a "network's" broadcast license, as it doesn't have one. Only the affiliates have broadcast licenses, so no lawmaker can shut down ABC as a whole, they'd have to go after each individual affiliate - which won't happen).
Remember the hoopla a few years ago when The Reagans was supposed to air on CBS? Republicans made such a major stink about it that CBS caved and didn't air it (it played on Showtime instead, which is also owned by Viacom). So don't think for a moment that objecting to a TV mini-series is a "leftist" thing to do. The funny thing... The Reagans was more factually accurate than The Path to 9/11.
I frankly don't see anything in your comment that could be considered an actual argument... more like regurgitation of Limbaugh's or Novak's talking points. But I could be wrong. It could just be your own mis-informed opinion. Somehow I doubt it. Republicans are renowned sheep.
You do have a point, but only two of the three examples you cited can be considered differing opinions.
Democrats vs. Republicans: two different ideologies.
Open Software vs. Proprietary: two different ideologies.
Evolution vs. Creationism: science vs. fantasy.
Of these three, that one doesn't belong on the list, as it's not a matter of opinion, but rather people who understand science, vs. people who either don't understand science or simply ignore it in favor of fiction that better suits their ideology.
However, I do agree with your point about how some people like to throw grenades and sit back and watch the fallout.