Advertisers are to blame for this, but not for the reason you might think.
The problem comes when an advertiser, aware of what can be done with HTML, animated GIFs, Flash, and remembering their marketing classes where they learned the importance of grabbing eyeballs, makes an obnoxious high-impact ad that screams for your attention and buys space on a web page you visit. Then someone else, to remain competitive, makes another high-impact ad on the next page you visit. Until they're on nearly every web page you visit.
So you block them.
Ad blocking comes about when people want to see content without invasive ads. We don't have time or inclination to screen every ad to see how offensive it is, so we just block them all. Advertisers notice this and stop "sponsoring" the web sites since they're not getting the eyeballs they want. So now web sites are short on revenue and blaming people with ad-blockers.
Many web sites are run by businesses, and without some kind of revenue stream, they're going to simply shut up shop. Non-business ones also need some way of paying the bills, unless the site is hosted gratis by another entity. Ad-free Wikipedia needs an annual donation drive to keep it going, a model that is unlikely to work for everybody. So I have no problem with sites having ads per se.
Sites like Slashdot do advertising very well, and I do not block their ads (even though I get a checkbox allowing me to do so apparently for my "contributions" to this site). They're not invasive, they don't claim I have won some imaginary prize, they don't try to run Flash or DHTML and chew up CPU cycles.
In fact, the only ads I block are Flash (thanks to the FlashBlock extension). I figure any company stupid enough to use Flash for its ads doesn't deserve my business.
For anyone still interested in Star Wars, Adywan's ESB:Revisited is due out in a couple of months. A preview with comparison to the crappy Blu Ray is here (switch on HD).
hehe I think you just made my joke a little better with that comment.
However I should probably explain that bit of Will Rogers humour. The implication here is that I rate this guy as less intelligent than the average Linux user but more intelligent than the average Mac user.
Or, as you succinctly put it, less of a semi-intelligent FUD-spewing machine than the average Mac user.
*sigh* thank you for that. A little defensive tonight, are we?
So, your example above suggests that that this thing puts out whatever is put into it, right? If it actually does that, then there's no issue here. However your previous post, assuming you're the same AC, seriously calls this into question:...we use the same hardware to encode an output stream on the fly and fire it down the Lightning cable straight into the ARM SoC...
Certain people are aware that the quality could be better and others are working on it. For the time being, the quality was deemed to be suitably acceptable.
Looking at my $80 7" tablet I would have to say "yes". Not that this need involve Apple at all - PDAs like these have been around for over a decade. It's just nice to have them now with more memory and I do like having the screen a bit bigger than my last PDA, a Sharp Zaurus which was perhaps 4 inches.
The fact that the generated image is in a lower resolution does not change this. Also you may still watch movie video output at true 1080p if you are playing back 1080p material.
*confused*
You first say that the generated image (presumably the picture that is presented on the 1080p signal) is "in a lower resolution", then you say that one may still watch movie video output at true 1080p.
Recent builds (since around about JRE 1.7u11) add a checkbox in the Security tab in the Control Panel applet (control.exe C:\Windows\System32\javacpl.cpl) titled, "Enable web content in browser". Uncheck that and never see another Java applet again.
about:plugins in your browser's location bar will verify Java isn't there.
Slashdot Mirror
Advertisers are to blame for this, but not for the reason you might think.
The problem comes when an advertiser, aware of what can be done with HTML, animated GIFs, Flash, and remembering their marketing classes where they learned the importance of grabbing eyeballs, makes an obnoxious high-impact ad that screams for your attention and buys space on a web page you visit. Then someone else, to remain competitive, makes another high-impact ad on the next page you visit. Until they're on nearly every web page you visit.
So you block them.
Ad blocking comes about when people want to see content without invasive ads. We don't have time or inclination to screen every ad to see how offensive it is, so we just block them all. Advertisers notice this and stop "sponsoring" the web sites since they're not getting the eyeballs they want. So now web sites are short on revenue and blaming people with ad-blockers.
Many web sites are run by businesses, and without some kind of revenue stream, they're going to simply shut up shop. Non-business ones also need some way of paying the bills, unless the site is hosted gratis by another entity. Ad-free Wikipedia needs an annual donation drive to keep it going, a model that is unlikely to work for everybody. So I have no problem with sites having ads per se.
Sites like Slashdot do advertising very well, and I do not block their ads (even though I get a checkbox allowing me to do so apparently for my "contributions" to this site). They're not invasive, they don't claim I have won some imaginary prize, they don't try to run Flash or DHTML and chew up CPU cycles.
In fact, the only ads I block are Flash (thanks to the FlashBlock extension). I figure any company stupid enough to use Flash for its ads doesn't deserve my business.
And how are these sites going to pay for their servers and bandwidth? Fairy dust?
Not even a little bit.
Paf!
Heh, good point.
I was just using dimensions as an example of the lack of information on the site other than, "here's a picture".
I still have my Model M and won't be giving it up any time soon. Mine, however, does not have that silly Windows key.
to the first person who likens these to the erroneous "canals".
For anyone still interested in Star Wars, Adywan's ESB:Revisited is due out in a couple of months. A preview with comparison to the crappy Blu Ray is here (switch on HD).
One rather impressive changelog so far.
These aren't original preservation attempts, rather new Special Editions or, more accurately, what the Special Editions should have been.
With whom? The US has not been at war since 1945.
Hint: Click on the slightly bigger thumbnail to get a full picture.
The site is badly lacking in basic specs though, like the dimensions for example.
hehe I think you just made my joke a little better with that comment.
However I should probably explain that bit of Will Rogers humour. The implication here is that I rate this guy as less intelligent than the average Linux user but more intelligent than the average Mac user.
Or, as you succinctly put it, less of a semi-intelligent FUD-spewing machine than the average Mac user.
I think the average intelligence of both Linux and Apple communities just went up a little.
It's because of stupidity like this that the DMCA should be violated at every opportunity as civil disobedience.
Interesting. OpenOffice.org or Libreoffice?
A small device with a fully-blown smartphone OS on ones wrist might get uncomfortably warm.
On the topic of evil companies:
At least the Sony SmartWatch couples to your existing Android device in your pocket so it doesn't need an entire battery-sucking OS crammed into it.
Oh, and also this one actually exists right now.
*sigh* thank you for that. A little defensive tonight, are we?
So, your example above suggests that that this thing puts out whatever is put into it, right? If it actually does that, then there's no issue here. However your previous post, assuming you're the same AC, seriously calls this into question: ...we use the same hardware to encode an output stream on the fly and fire it down the Lightning cable straight into the ARM SoC...
Certain people are aware that the quality could be better and others are working on it. For the time being, the quality was deemed to be suitably acceptable.
Mini tablets with 2048x1536? Some people must really hate battery life I guess...
Uhm, citation needed please.
I bought a tablet that I could afford and would run what I needed for work. Apple failed on both counts.
Looking at my $80 7" tablet I would have to say "yes". Not that this need involve Apple at all - PDAs like these have been around for over a decade. It's just nice to have them now with more memory and I do like having the screen a bit bigger than my last PDA, a Sharp Zaurus which was perhaps 4 inches.
The fact that the generated image is in a lower resolution does not change this. Also you may still watch movie video output at true 1080p if you are playing back 1080p material.
*confused*
You first say that the generated image (presumably the picture that is presented on the 1080p signal) is "in a lower resolution", then you say that one may still watch movie video output at true 1080p.
So which is it?
Recent builds (since around about JRE 1.7u11) add a checkbox in the Security tab in the Control Panel applet (control.exe C:\Windows\System32\javacpl.cpl) titled, "Enable web content in browser". Uncheck that and never see another Java applet again.
about:plugins in your browser's location bar will verify Java isn't there.
The enemies of Democracy are what?
A Great Wall, one might say.
DISCLAIMER: In keeping with Slashdot tradition, I didn't actually read the article.
You do have an alternative - show up at airport, check your bags, show your boarding pass, sit on the damn plane.
Did I miss anything?
It should be a federal offence to claim that anything below 48fps is serious video work.
To whom should a startup with a low budget be selling games if they're not big enough to fill a disc?
Me, of course. I'm happy to download games I paid for, then re-sell them when I'm done. Why is this a problem?
Why make the distinction between downloadable content and physical media?