Another way to look at it would be that Wikipedia has an enormous number of policies that newcommers shouldn't be expected to memorize before contributing. So newcommers contribute the meat of an article, and people who have been around for a while apply all the style rules, find a couple categories for it, make sure it has the backlinks it should, etc... Sure, there's room for editorializing there, but hopefully there's enough established people around that they can review each other's work and make sure they're sticking to policy...
Um, doesn't this study tend to support your assertions? It says that people with high edit counts contribute little to nothing to articles, while newcommers are the ones who provide most of the meat...
Umm.... I think it's entirely reasonable that, given the price difference between 1080-line sets and ~720-line sets, given that quite a few 1080-line sets can't input 1080p, and given my empirical observations at Best Buy of the availability of 1080p (or even 1080-line) sets, that 10% is a very reasonable upper bound on 1080p sets. I'd guestimate that it's less than 5%, but the GP asked for a source, so I wasn't going to speculate too much.
See here. Of the 737 models listed there, only 100 are capable of displaying 1024 lines or more, and 79 are capable of 1080 lines. That site doesn't have a way to quickly show which ones can only input 1080i and not 1080p, but there's quite a few sets that can display 1080 lines but still can't input 1080p.
Also, sets with a display less than 1000 lines are obviously noticably less expensive, so consumers are more likely to buy them as well.
In short, at most 10.7% of the market is capable of 1080i.
Broadcast quality decisions make a big difference too, I think? HDNET quite often looks really good, whereas most of the other HD channels don't usually have quite the punch that HDNET has. Consumer-level HD terminology is confusing enough that I don't know what's going on behind the scenes, but I assume it's pretty complicated, and maybe it will take everyone in the production chain a while to get perfect?
I don't know, there are a few HD-Net scenes that make my jaw drop out of the blue because they're amazingly detailed (scenic landscapes, sweaty athletes). Of course, it goes the other way too, when you get distracted from the entertainment that's on because the cameraman is struggling to get the focus correct, or when an actress's skin ends up looking less than perfect on HD.
Maybe lots of early adopters are waiting for a player that will read both formats? (or are waiting for one format to win) I'm not a super-early adopter, but I'd probably buy in the next 12 months if one of these happened.
Most people so far are purchasing 720p-native screens. And if they're purchasing 1080-native screens, most can only input 1080i. Comparing in 720p seems like the most sensible comparison... (though obviously 1080p IS available, so it'd be nice to see that statistics for that too)
But there are bandwidth caps, you just don't often find out about them until the ISP cuts off your account or asks you to upgrade. And while an honor system might be an optimal solution (if it was practical), there are users out there who don't necessarily know how much bandwidth they'll eat up if they leave a BitTorrent application running the whole month.
Or they can just be nicer about their bandwidth caps... don't advertise "unlimited bandwidth", and if a customer gets near their monthly cap, then slow them down to 64kbps down or something like that. If a customer only uses BitTorrent twice a month, why does the ISP have to go to the trouble of trying to detect an encrypted connection and slowing it down?
So if the list of developers is secret... Is there a chance that nobody is working on it? "We have secret people working on it" just sounds like an ongoing part of a joke. Maybe all the 3D Realms developers are really working on something else, and they just release bits of news about DNF whenever the company needs a laugh?
It's not quite a prerequisite in that every single fact, no matter how obvious, has to have an academic journal backing it up (for instance, the claim that tires are usually found on cars should be obvious to most people). But Wikipedia:Verifiability is definitely one of Wikipedia's most important core policies.
If there's an article that obviously needs better sources, feel free to add {{unreferenced}} to an article that has no sources whatsoever, or otherwise add {{fact}} after a sentence that seems like it's badly in need of a source to back up the claim made.
Utilizing BD drives in its own PS3 game consoles, Sony suspended shipments of blue laser diodes to other customers
Which means the effective cost of PS3 is higher. Sony is eating the opportunity cost of selling the blue lasers to other customers, who would certainly pay higher-than-otherwise prices due to decreased supply.
Capitalism is set up to encourage people to allocate scarce resources as efficiently as possible. Sony, on the other hand, is allocating scarce resources to 8-year-old Johnny who only wants the latest console.
It doesn't surprise me, I just think there might be a more effective way to spend money. Building a community is hard, and certainly companies will spend money on advertising. But advertising money into to build the next Digg is compeltely different from advertising a bottle of coke, because of the marketing effects. Certainly there are more effective ways to do that, and less effective ways.
I don't know if Digg intentionally makes a group of contributors more prominent. Certainly for every successful story, there are many duplicates, and it seems sort of random chance (or just more outrageous wording) that decides whose will get promoted.
Internally, Digg is pretty complicated though. They have an internal karma system to keep spammers out, so maybe the same thing works in reverse to build a cabal, but maybe it's just that once you gain enough karma, there might be places where Digg makes it easier for your story to get promoted?
As Digg's Kevin Rose pointed out, these are community sites with many many contributors. No single contributor has a very large influence compared to the rest of the community.
Wouldn't the sites do better spending their money to draw in larger groups of people? Like giving away prizes to every 1000th new visitor, or something like that?
I'm not even sure 2 inch HD screens exist or are physically possible. Wireless HD is for media extender devices... eg. say you live in an apartment, and have an HD HTPC in your living room. If you want to watch HD in your bedroom using the same recorded content, you could potentially link two HTPC's with wireless so you don't have to drill any holes or run any wires down halls and through doorways.
The only thing net neutrality should ever be applied to are situations where a natual monopoly (last mile companies) or other monopolies exist. eg. Where you have one entity who has the power to degrade another entity's bandwidth simply because the other entity is performing better than them.
In most other situations, market/social forces will usually make the right result come out.
The highway running by my house has real market value too, but that doesn't mean it's right for me to put a roadblock up and start charging money. What benefit is ICANN performing in exchange for these increased prices? None? Okay, then it's not a market issue.
And certainly one can get too crazy with statistics. But considering that a National Geographic photograph has, what, 10+ megapixels of information, and even cheap cameras have 2+ megapixels... But a 720p frame has 1 megapixel of information, it's hard to say that 720p is at all over-the-top. Sure, comparing motion to still resolution isn't competely fair, but when there's less motion in the video (eg. scenic landscape shots, interviews with sweaty athletes), you can appreciate the somewhat improved resolution.
As for DRM... movie studios realize that the only time they can fix previously hacked DRM is when an obviously improved standard comes out, otherwise consumers would view a change as a net-negative, and won't "upgrade". I don't think the best solution is, in this post-Napster world, to never upgrade again, to always stick with 90's tech. Maybe a more pragmatic approach would be to wait until new DRM is cracked enough so that it's hassle-free to use a neutered player.
So... the version that HD-Net scans is the final production version. So the final version of movies is >=720p.
Yes, the experience is better. Film producers decided it was so much better that they decided to deal with the expense of increasing resolution 30 years ago (eg. when higher resolution was more expensive than it is today).
(or rather, HD is capable of a better experience. You can certainly make a terrible movie using any medium)
It's useful to scan 1970s movies into HD, because even old film contains more information than 720x480. When 30+ year old movies have higher resolution than what you can carry home today, you know an upgrade is inevitable.
You miss some of the action when you stop playing an MMORPG to go to sleep. Granted, many MMORPG's don't fundamentally change while you're sleeping, but it seems like as game universes grow, there will be simulations on a longer time scale that have substantial changes.
I don't think they're describing a game that extends the length of the game by balance... It's more that it simply takes time to achieve the goals, and there are many goals to achieve in sequence. (eg. even if the Allies had a clearly superior army, it would still have taken significant amounts of time to land on the beaches of Normandy, to establish a beachhead, and then to begin to recapture land that was captured by the Axis powers over many months)
Slashdot Mirror
Another way to look at it would be that Wikipedia has an enormous number of policies that newcommers shouldn't be expected to memorize before contributing. So newcommers contribute the meat of an article, and people who have been around for a while apply all the style rules, find a couple categories for it, make sure it has the backlinks it should, etc... Sure, there's room for editorializing there, but hopefully there's enough established people around that they can review each other's work and make sure they're sticking to policy...
Um, doesn't this study tend to support your assertions? It says that people with high edit counts contribute little to nothing to articles, while newcommers are the ones who provide most of the meat...
Umm.... I think it's entirely reasonable that, given the price difference between 1080-line sets and ~720-line sets, given that quite a few 1080-line sets can't input 1080p, and given my empirical observations at Best Buy of the availability of 1080p (or even 1080-line) sets, that 10% is a very reasonable upper bound on 1080p sets. I'd guestimate that it's less than 5%, but the GP asked for a source, so I wasn't going to speculate too much.
Damn, I wish I could fix posts. That's 10.7% of the market that are capable of displaying 1080 lines.
See here. Of the 737 models listed there, only 100 are capable of displaying 1024 lines or more, and 79 are capable of 1080 lines. That site doesn't have a way to quickly show which ones can only input 1080i and not 1080p, but there's quite a few sets that can display 1080 lines but still can't input 1080p.
Also, sets with a display less than 1000 lines are obviously noticably less expensive, so consumers are more likely to buy them as well.
In short, at most 10.7% of the market is capable of 1080i.
Broadcast quality decisions make a big difference too, I think? HDNET quite often looks really good, whereas most of the other HD channels don't usually have quite the punch that HDNET has. Consumer-level HD terminology is confusing enough that I don't know what's going on behind the scenes, but I assume it's pretty complicated, and maybe it will take everyone in the production chain a while to get perfect?
I don't know, there are a few HD-Net scenes that make my jaw drop out of the blue because they're amazingly detailed (scenic landscapes, sweaty athletes). Of course, it goes the other way too, when you get distracted from the entertainment that's on because the cameraman is struggling to get the focus correct, or when an actress's skin ends up looking less than perfect on HD.
Maybe lots of early adopters are waiting for a player that will read both formats? (or are waiting for one format to win) I'm not a super-early adopter, but I'd probably buy in the next 12 months if one of these happened.
Most people so far are purchasing 720p-native screens. And if they're purchasing 1080-native screens, most can only input 1080i. Comparing in 720p seems like the most sensible comparison... (though obviously 1080p IS available, so it'd be nice to see that statistics for that too)
But there are bandwidth caps, you just don't often find out about them until the ISP cuts off your account or asks you to upgrade. And while an honor system might be an optimal solution (if it was practical), there are users out there who don't necessarily know how much bandwidth they'll eat up if they leave a BitTorrent application running the whole month.
Or they can just be nicer about their bandwidth caps... don't advertise "unlimited bandwidth", and if a customer gets near their monthly cap, then slow them down to 64kbps down or something like that. If a customer only uses BitTorrent twice a month, why does the ISP have to go to the trouble of trying to detect an encrypted connection and slowing it down?
So if the list of developers is secret... Is there a chance that nobody is working on it? "We have secret people working on it" just sounds like an ongoing part of a joke. Maybe all the 3D Realms developers are really working on something else, and they just release bits of news about DNF whenever the company needs a laugh?
It is a prerequisite. It is always appropriate to ask other editors to produce their sources. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit in question, and any unsourced material may be removed by any editor.
It's not quite a prerequisite in that every single fact, no matter how obvious, has to have an academic journal backing it up (for instance, the claim that tires are usually found on cars should be obvious to most people). But Wikipedia:Verifiability is definitely one of Wikipedia's most important core policies.
If there's an article that obviously needs better sources, feel free to add {{unreferenced}} to an article that has no sources whatsoever, or otherwise add {{fact}} after a sentence that seems like it's badly in need of a source to back up the claim made.
Utilizing BD drives in its own PS3 game consoles, Sony suspended shipments of blue laser diodes to other customers
Which means the effective cost of PS3 is higher. Sony is eating the opportunity cost of selling the blue lasers to other customers, who would certainly pay higher-than-otherwise prices due to decreased supply.
Capitalism is set up to encourage people to allocate scarce resources as efficiently as possible. Sony, on the other hand, is allocating scarce resources to 8-year-old Johnny who only wants the latest console.
It doesn't surprise me, I just think there might be a more effective way to spend money. Building a community is hard, and certainly companies will spend money on advertising. But advertising money into to build the next Digg is compeltely different from advertising a bottle of coke, because of the marketing effects. Certainly there are more effective ways to do that, and less effective ways.
I don't know if Digg intentionally makes a group of contributors more prominent. Certainly for every successful story, there are many duplicates, and it seems sort of random chance (or just more outrageous wording) that decides whose will get promoted.
Internally, Digg is pretty complicated though. They have an internal karma system to keep spammers out, so maybe the same thing works in reverse to build a cabal, but maybe it's just that once you gain enough karma, there might be places where Digg makes it easier for your story to get promoted?
As Digg's Kevin Rose pointed out, these are community sites with many many contributors. No single contributor has a very large influence compared to the rest of the community.
Wouldn't the sites do better spending their money to draw in larger groups of people? Like giving away prizes to every 1000th new visitor, or something like that?
Power over Ethernet is standard, not all that ambitious.
I'm not even sure 2 inch HD screens exist or are physically possible. Wireless HD is for media extender devices... eg. say you live in an apartment, and have an HD HTPC in your living room. If you want to watch HD in your bedroom using the same recorded content, you could potentially link two HTPC's with wireless so you don't have to drill any holes or run any wires down halls and through doorways.
In most other situations, market/social forces will usually make the right result come out.
The highway running by my house has real market value too, but that doesn't mean it's right for me to put a roadblock up and start charging money. What benefit is ICANN performing in exchange for these increased prices? None? Okay, then it's not a market issue.
For what it's worth, there's some Abloy information at tool.nl for the curious.
Certainly MPEG over-compression sucks, no matter what resolution you're viewing. But that's a point in favor of BluRay/HD-DVD, because physical media still has more bandwidth than wires.
And certainly one can get too crazy with statistics. But considering that a National Geographic photograph has, what, 10+ megapixels of information, and even cheap cameras have 2+ megapixels... But a 720p frame has 1 megapixel of information, it's hard to say that 720p is at all over-the-top. Sure, comparing motion to still resolution isn't competely fair, but when there's less motion in the video (eg. scenic landscape shots, interviews with sweaty athletes), you can appreciate the somewhat improved resolution.
As for DRM... movie studios realize that the only time they can fix previously hacked DRM is when an obviously improved standard comes out, otherwise consumers would view a change as a net-negative, and won't "upgrade". I don't think the best solution is, in this post-Napster world, to never upgrade again, to always stick with 90's tech. Maybe a more pragmatic approach would be to wait until new DRM is cracked enough so that it's hassle-free to use a neutered player.
So... the version that HD-Net scans is the final production version. So the final version of movies is >=720p.
Yes, the experience is better. Film producers decided it was so much better that they decided to deal with the expense of increasing resolution 30 years ago (eg. when higher resolution was more expensive than it is today).
(or rather, HD is capable of a better experience. You can certainly make a terrible movie using any medium)
Third, 720x480 is just fine for movies. Grow up.
Five words: HD-NET film scans from 1970s.
It's useful to scan 1970s movies into HD, because even old film contains more information than 720x480. When 30+ year old movies have higher resolution than what you can carry home today, you know an upgrade is inevitable.
You miss some of the action when you stop playing an MMORPG to go to sleep. Granted, many MMORPG's don't fundamentally change while you're sleeping, but it seems like as game universes grow, there will be simulations on a longer time scale that have substantial changes.
I don't think they're describing a game that extends the length of the game by balance... It's more that it simply takes time to achieve the goals, and there are many goals to achieve in sequence. (eg. even if the Allies had a clearly superior army, it would still have taken significant amounts of time to land on the beaches of Normandy, to establish a beachhead, and then to begin to recapture land that was captured by the Axis powers over many months)