No, it isn't. It's just easier to believe because everybody hates MS. It wasn't all that long ago that it was generally believed that the Microsoft 'investment' had to do with licensing the code in question.
"See, you can copy lines of code, but the original remains. But when you steal market share, it has to be subtracted somewhere. You can steal money and bananas. You cannot steal music and movies. "
That's probably why the term 'infringement' is being used here.
" SCO is just a Microsoft puppet being used to do the nasty things M$ can't do in public."
You know, it's funny really: Everybody bitches when the BBC says that the MyDoom virus was likely written by an Open Source Zealot, but it's okay to throw out these stupid accusations whose basis in reality is purely circumstantial, and then mod them up as +5 'Interesting'. Can't have it both ways, folks.
Overrated my ass. Palm got their name trademarked even though "Palm" was clearly established in the market all the way back to 1991. The differences between this and Windows aren't that big. Either the trademark wasn't so wrong, or both Palm and Microsoft need to lose their trademark.
It's easier to take this case a little more seriously when it's not about a company you loathe, iddn't it?
" Lindows, the name, implies 100% compatibility with Windows programs. Therefore, it does dilute the windows trademark."
I have no idea how you get the idea that it implies compatbility. However, if you go to their site and click on the "What is Lindows" link, you do get something that looks and sounds a lot like Windows. Even down to the mention of Plug n Play.
I'm surprised the judge didn't just say "I don't care what is trademarkable, you did this malisciously. Get out!!" *Sigh* If only it had been Judge Judy.
"Bill wants every desktop to be the same and once you install Windows, there's a indefinite part of your computer that no longer belongs to you, as they have dictated and will continue to do so."
Yeah I suppose that's one interpretation. The other one is that there is basic functionality that is demanded of a computer, and Microsoft is trying to make that work as painlessly as possible. It's the type of thing you really start to understand when you try to make a single video file that will play on most machines. It's a pain in the ass. At least Microsoft gives you that default to work with. You'll pardon me if I'm not terribly impressed by phrases like "no longer belongs to you" and "as they have dictated". Microsoft is filling a need that nobody else (like Real or Quicktime) has been able to manage.
You really want to be afraid of WMP on Windows? Consider this: Microsoft provides a good format with a good player on the vast majority of machines. It becomes the de-facto format for playback. Microsoft decides it doesn't want to bother porting to Linux or Apple.
Can you really blame Microsoft for that? Well let's look at the facts: Serving video with only one format on the web is anything but painless. No bundling of a media player means people have to go find their own player and codecs etc. The result of that is chaos, and that's all we've had since the internet become a consumer good. The Open Source Community has had (and still has) plenty of time to do something about this, but gee, where's the grand unified wonderful open format and player?
There's a big ass opportunity here being missed. If Microsoft does gain that de-facto status, you can still fight. Make the Linux/Mac/Anything else player. Bundle the player with Mozilla. Make a version for Windows as well. Get people to start using it. (Look in DivX's direction for how to do that.)
Okay I'm out of steam so I'll wrap this up: I'm just sick and tired of all this whining about MS, and in the wrong places. Don't fault them for creating a product in demand and bundling it with Windows. It makes for a better machine, not a worse one. It's the monopoly side of it you watch for. Just remember that it's a market accepted de-facto monopoly, not a "MS has me by the balls and is squeezing" monopoly. That means that it can be fought. Stop copying what's already out there and innovate. Make a video player that has hotspot capability. Make a video player that with animated skins. Make a video player with an ActiveX wrapper and built in codec (no more VFW!) and make the licensing terms generous.
"TV does not have 60 fps. It just projects the image 60 times per second."
I hope you realize that sentence reads like a TV only works at 1 fps, this is wrong of course.
Alright, everybody seems confused about how TVs work. Well let me start by saying, yes, TVs do operate at 60 fps. You are getting 60 distinct frames of animation per second on a TV. But before you hit that reply button to tell me I'm wrong, keep reading.
TV's only have enough bandwidth to interpret 30 frames per second at 720 by 480 resolution. In order to achieve this higher frame rate, they halved the resolution vertically and doubled the frame rate. So in one second, in interlaced mode, you're getting 60 half-res frames per second. They are half frames, but there are also still 60 distinct frames of animation. This is not an illusion, nor is it a trick to keep your eyes from noticing the flicker. It really is 60 frames per second. (Sorry for being redundant, but man I can't believe how many people have commented on this so far.)
So now to address what you've said:
"* Cinemas project *the entire image* during the whole frame-time. The small blacks during image shifts are taken care of by your eyes (ever wondered why you do not see blackness when you blink normally?)"
Yes, this is basically true. Films run at 24 fps progressive scan. And yes, your eyes retain the light long enough that you don't see flickers. But to add to this, it's important to know that each frame is thrown up twice. The result is actually 48fps. No, this is NOT like the TV example above. You don't get 48fps of motion, even interlaced, you get 24 fps of motion displayed at 48 fps so that you get less light flicker. (Note: From what I understand, this may only be true on certain projectors, been a while since I looked into it.)
"Your eyes are only capable of seeing 20-25 fps."
This is not true. Human eyes can percieve motion all the way up to 100fps. What you are describing is not the same thing as frame rate. It has to do with retention of light. When you get into the 20 fps range, you stop seeing flicker and start seeing blur. Things may streak, that doesn't mean you're not getting temporal resolution in there. I guess it's sort of like watching an LCD do 60 fps video. Notice it ghosts a little? You're still getting 60 distinct frames per second of video, but it gets a little ghosty.
" This is why you do not see fluorescent links blink on and off."
No argument here. It supports my above point.
" For this reason you will not notice when cimema projection will increase speed from 25-60 fps."
This is not a logical conclusion to draw. First, your understanding is flawed. Second, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary, just on this site alone. Show somebody a game running at 30 fps, then at 60 fps, and the gamer will say "that one is smoother". Ask anybody who works in animation. Ask anybody who works in broadcast. Yes, 60fps video on a movie screen will be noticable. You know how I know this? Because my local theater has a digital projector for showing commercials before a movie. They were running at 60fps, and it was quite different than the cinematic look. I wasn't the only one who noticed that.
"yeah we can have, frame dropouts, compression artifacts, media controled by DRM propritory formats."
Proprietary DRM? What's that got to do with anything? It's for delivering content to a particular location, as opposed to delivering content on the net. Or are we crying foul every time DRM is used? Would you prefer they used password protected ZIP?
Slashdot Mirror
Topic: Saving Hubble.
Post: Reusing Hubble.
Implication: Humor.
Moderation: Offtopic.
Moderator: Clueless.
How about pointing it at Mars and using the Hubble as a giant Pringles can?
No, it isn't. It's just easier to believe because everybody hates MS. It wasn't all that long ago that it was generally believed that the Microsoft 'investment' had to do with licensing the code in question.
Also, the GC is cheap enough that it's easy to own that along with your PS2 or XBOX. Nintendo nailed that one.
"See, you can copy lines of code, but the original remains. But when you steal market share, it has to be subtracted somewhere. You can steal money and bananas. You cannot steal music and movies. "
That's probably why the term 'infringement' is being used here.
"That is, assuming those letters WERE sent through the USPS and not the more efficient forms of delivery such as UPS, FedEX, etc."
I got mine in email from their headquarters in Nigeria.
" SCO is just a Microsoft puppet being used to do the nasty things M$ can't do in public."
You know, it's funny really: Everybody bitches when the BBC says that the MyDoom virus was likely written by an Open Source Zealot, but it's okay to throw out these stupid accusations whose basis in reality is purely circumstantial, and then mod them up as +5 'Interesting'. Can't have it both ways, folks.
"WineX 3.3 Out - Now Supports Steam"
Whoah, my great grandfather would rejoice!
"I take it you don't know what the word "interlaced" means, do you?"
I take it you don't know what 'frames per second' means, do you?
Overrated my ass. Palm got their name trademarked even though "Palm" was clearly established in the market all the way back to 1991. The differences between this and Windows aren't that big. Either the trademark wasn't so wrong, or both Palm and Microsoft need to lose their trademark.
It's easier to take this case a little more seriously when it's not about a company you loathe, iddn't it?
Here's a whole lot more.
Enjoy.
"Palm got their trademark BEFORE the word Palm was generic in the computer industry."
Bullshit. The term 'palm top' was used quite frequently long before Palm hit the market.
"Windows" is a generic term in the software industry,"
So why is it okay for Palm to have their trademark?
" Lindows, the name, implies 100% compatibility with Windows programs. Therefore, it does dilute the windows trademark."
I have no idea how you get the idea that it implies compatbility. However, if you go to their site and click on the "What is Lindows" link, you do get something that looks and sounds a lot like Windows. Even down to the mention of Plug n Play.
I'm surprised the judge didn't just say "I don't care what is trademarkable, you did this malisciously. Get out!!" *Sigh* If only it had been Judge Judy.
"Back in the day, however, it wasn't common for you to "accidentally" stumble upon a combo that suddenly did 30-40% damage."
Man, that was always quite a sight. That's the closest I've ever come to understanding how a football fan feels during a game.
"You notice this type of thing? Scarry..."
It's a reasonable assumption to make given how feminine your voice is.
Troll? Hmm I kinda expected that my parent post would have been accepted in better humor.
"Bill wants every desktop to be the same and once you install Windows, there's a indefinite part of your computer that no longer belongs to you, as they have dictated and will continue to do so."
Yeah I suppose that's one interpretation. The other one is that there is basic functionality that is demanded of a computer, and Microsoft is trying to make that work as painlessly as possible. It's the type of thing you really start to understand when you try to make a single video file that will play on most machines. It's a pain in the ass. At least Microsoft gives you that default to work with. You'll pardon me if I'm not terribly impressed by phrases like "no longer belongs to you" and "as they have dictated". Microsoft is filling a need that nobody else (like Real or Quicktime) has been able to manage.
You really want to be afraid of WMP on Windows? Consider this: Microsoft provides a good format with a good player on the vast majority of machines. It becomes the de-facto format for playback. Microsoft decides it doesn't want to bother porting to Linux or Apple.
Can you really blame Microsoft for that? Well let's look at the facts: Serving video with only one format on the web is anything but painless. No bundling of a media player means people have to go find their own player and codecs etc. The result of that is chaos, and that's all we've had since the internet become a consumer good. The Open Source Community has had (and still has) plenty of time to do something about this, but gee, where's the grand unified wonderful open format and player?
There's a big ass opportunity here being missed. If Microsoft does gain that de-facto status, you can still fight. Make the Linux/Mac/Anything else player. Bundle the player with Mozilla. Make a version for Windows as well. Get people to start using it. (Look in DivX's direction for how to do that.)
Okay I'm out of steam so I'll wrap this up: I'm just sick and tired of all this whining about MS, and in the wrong places. Don't fault them for creating a product in demand and bundling it with Windows. It makes for a better machine, not a worse one. It's the monopoly side of it you watch for. Just remember that it's a market accepted de-facto monopoly, not a "MS has me by the balls and is squeezing" monopoly. That means that it can be fought. Stop copying what's already out there and innovate. Make a video player that has hotspot capability. Make a video player that with animated skins. Make a video player with an ActiveX wrapper and built in codec (no more VFW!) and make the licensing terms generous.
Do something besides predicting gloom and doom.
"hey, projector person, click No on the Media Player Update dialog! It's blocking Angelina's chest!"
"Although a system running linux/mplayer would probably be better, people still hang on to what is familiar to them."
Maybe they'd prefer clicking a mouse to memorizing case sensitive commands.
I hope you realize that sentence reads like a TV only works at 1 fps, this is wrong of course.
Alright, everybody seems confused about how TVs work. Well let me start by saying, yes, TVs do operate at 60 fps. You are getting 60 distinct frames of animation per second on a TV. But before you hit that reply button to tell me I'm wrong, keep reading.
TV's only have enough bandwidth to interpret 30 frames per second at 720 by 480 resolution. In order to achieve this higher frame rate, they halved the resolution vertically and doubled the frame rate. So in one second, in interlaced mode, you're getting 60 half-res frames per second. They are half frames, but there are also still 60 distinct frames of animation. This is not an illusion, nor is it a trick to keep your eyes from noticing the flicker. It really is 60 frames per second. (Sorry for being redundant, but man I can't believe how many people have commented on this so far.)
So now to address what you've said:
Yes, this is basically true. Films run at 24 fps progressive scan. And yes, your eyes retain the light long enough that you don't see flickers. But to add to this, it's important to know that each frame is thrown up twice. The result is actually 48fps. No, this is NOT like the TV example above. You don't get 48fps of motion, even interlaced, you get 24 fps of motion displayed at 48 fps so that you get less light flicker. (Note: From what I understand, this may only be true on certain projectors, been a while since I looked into it.)
This is not true. Human eyes can percieve motion all the way up to 100fps. What you are describing is not the same thing as frame rate. It has to do with retention of light. When you get into the 20 fps range, you stop seeing flicker and start seeing blur. Things may streak, that doesn't mean you're not getting temporal resolution in there. I guess it's sort of like watching an LCD do 60 fps video. Notice it ghosts a little? You're still getting 60 distinct frames per second of video, but it gets a little ghosty.
No argument here. It supports my above point.
This is not a logical conclusion to draw. First, your understanding is flawed. Second, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary, just on this site alone. Show somebody a game running at 30 fps, then at 60 fps, and the gamer will say "that one is smoother". Ask anybody who works in animation. Ask anybody who works in broadcast. Yes, 60fps video on a movie screen will be noticable. You know how I know this? Because my local theater has a digital projector for showing commercials before a movie. They were running at 60fps, and it was quite different than the cinematic look. I wasn't the only one who noticed that.
"tv scans every second line so 60hz is only 30 fps"
Wrong, TV is 60fps interlaced.
"yeah we can have, frame dropouts, compression artifacts, media controled by DRM propritory formats."
Proprietary DRM? What's that got to do with anything? It's for delivering content to a particular location, as opposed to delivering content on the net. Or are we crying foul every time DRM is used? Would you prefer they used password protected ZIP?
"Macs have had plug and play multi-display since 1987, in 24 bit colour."
A small handful of people rejoiced!!