If security was an issue, the searches would make more sense though. In security, it's the weakest link that breaks, not the strongest, and current USA methods, however strong they become, however annoying they become don't affect:
1) an inside job. 2) the weaker security at the foreign airport you got on the plane at, and then you basically get free run of the secure area of the USA airport you get off at or change at
And the "ID check" is so utterly useless. There are so many documents you could use as ID, that none of the staff that do the checking (and they don't always) can really have enough time or experience to do it well enough to spot even a poor fake.
It's all about the "appearance" of being tough on evil dooers, and I'm sure most USA citizens feel oh so much "safer" that they have to take their shoes off, and wait half an hour in a queue and hae a "random" search before getting on a simple plane flight.
So yes, the ID check is "unreasonable" because it's so utterly useless. Totally and utterly. Couldn't stop a fly, and didn't stop any evil doers.
Major issue with software patents cannot be solved by better searches for prior art - the only way to fix software patents is to do away with them in their entirety.
Physical things, that you can easily take apart and see how they work, are pretty good for patenting with how the current system work. Mental things should never be patentable, and software patents are just ludicrous. I bet this RTI patent does not fully disclose every detail on how their invention should work - how could they as they've never built that invention! Basically, I'd nuke any software patent straight out, and any other patent that does not basically include a dummies building instruction, or physical model that you could take apart to learn how it works should also go. Anything else is like patenting the "idea" of a thing, but not telling you exactly how the "thing" works.
Copying music is not always stealing. For instance, here in Canada it's perfectly legal. In many countries, it's perfectly legal to copy music for your own use, for the car, to a media server etc.
Copying music just to avoid paying for it, is illegal in many countries, however.
Whatever the rights and wrong of copying music, some of the "solutions" are worse crimes than the problem - ie, crippling people's computers and making them open to hackers, or taking away people's privacy.
Of course, piracy, is not schoolyard copying, but commercial copying of music, and of course, that is illegal everywhere, and could be stamped out as soon as enough effort is put into it. Commercial piracy needs pressing plants, needs sales outlets and you can track these places down and shut them down.
Don't lump software producers in with big music biz. Most software companies are small independents, and $200 is two weeks' grocery bills, not $200 towards my next BMW. This kind of fraud really hurts small biz. It's nothing like music piracy where lost sales due to copying are mostly because people would never have bought the music in the first place. In this case, a genuiine sale is made, and then the buyer pulls out after the sale has been made and the money gets clawed back. How do you think it feels to have made the sale, to give the software to the customer, only to be told they've changed their mind and you've got to give the money back, but there's no way you can get the software back?? It's fraud, it's criminal and it hurts. I know. I'm suffering from it.
What happens is people buy software, use it, like it, and feel like getting the software for free, so they cause a chargeback on the credit card, and there's practically nothing the vendor of the software can do about it, other than eat the fraud. The credit card companies care nothing about this kind of fraud, and indeed, by not investigating the claimed reason for chargeback, they're complicit with the fraudster. This kind of fraud must be costing software companies millions a year!
All reputable software companies will process a refund if necessary, if the software doesn't work, or install or whatever, but they expect you to inform them, and work with them to attempt a solution first.
You miss the point that hardware is a thing, whereas software is, in source form, a free expression of ideas, as any novel in literature is. Software embodies algorithms and algorithms are rightly not-patentable as they would limit under law the range of legal human thought.
Software is more than adequately protected by copyright. The only good solution for software patents is no software patents. I can sort of see the point of patents on hardware, but again, they need to be quality patents or the problem is worse than the solution.
Most people believe what their parent's believe, right down tot he particular brand of religion.
Most people in the USA are christian. If people actually thought about what to believe and tried to find a religious belief (assuming they're going to be religious) that fitted in with their own ideas, wouldn't there be a nice random distribution among populations and variations in families?
And Atheists don't become born again - lapsed christians do! Atheists have an honest breakdown and just hit the bottle.
Please do define yourself, but I'm certain that if you're a christian then all other christians are not. I'm certain, however, that at the very least you're a theist. I'm also certain that you believe in your interpretation of the bible and that in your mind that makes you a christian, but that your interpretation will differ from every other christian's to a greater or lesser extent.
If I define myself as agnostic, then at the very least you know that I do not know whether or wether there is not a god, but that is the absolute limit of what you know about me from that definition. Personally, I extend my personal definition to be that I'm agnostic to the concept of god in general, but I'm atheist to any specific god, ie the christian god.
What I'm getting at is that "christian" has baggage attached to it that "theist", "deist", "agnostic" do not, and "atheist" does not in my mind have baggage, but to uneducated masses it is take to mean child-eater or devil worshiper.
So if you're a catholic and you do not agree with everything in the catholic faith, I think you'd be be better by not calling yourself a catholic as by doing so you lend strength to things you do not believe in. I don't think christian ONLY means believer in the christ of the bible - I do think it means an aful lot more than that.
I have read the bible and found god to be a miserable and evil bastard. Slaves should be beaten until they have many stripes on their back. I'm happy that the she bears killed the 40 children, that Pharoah's will was hardened, and I'm happy indeed to taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. And I do bring a tree into the house and decorate it at winter solstice time.
So religious believers have strength in numbers the world over - what does that mean?? The number of people believing in something has no bearing on it's validity either way.
The main issue with religious believers is that their belief is not rational and in many cases borders on madness. Unlike other bad habits, they feel it necessary to perform their bad habit in public and group together with others.
You as an individual can believe whatever you want, and I'll defend your right to believe whatever you want, but as soon as you try to organise together to oppress.... I'm not happy at all. I don't know you, you're probably not one of those oppressive types - after all that type of religious person doesn't read/. for instance, and cannot use a computer, but by even allowing yourself to be associated with them by saying you're a christian, you're lending validity to their oppression. Now I'm certain you're not a christian - you have your own beliefs, and as no two christians can agree on exactly what to believe anyway, I'd be much happier if you described yourself as a theist and leave it at that.
Just because media science promulgates arrogance, does not mean that science is arrogant. Any scientist that says "this is the right answer, the total truth, forever" is arrogant - but they don't say that. Your media scientist is a straw man.
The true answer is always "I don't know" - but the person who has studied the available evidence will say - "the available evidence points to this or that conlusion". It does not mean that that conclusion is true, only that the available evidence points to it. When more evidence becomes available, the pointed at conclusion will change to more accurately reflect the available evidence.
So it's not a question of "possibility" but one of evidence. Faith is what you believe in when you don't have evidence. There's ample evidence out there to make a decision if you look at it without being brainwashed from birth.
What a rational person can do is look at the known facts about the christian god and decide from the available evidence if they make sense given your own personal experiences of the world. If you have a vision and god speaks to you, then there is no way for me to dissuade you from a belief in god. However, your evidence is personal evidence, and it's based upon personal experience, and is in no way valid for convincing me that there is such a god.
Even if you do have a personal revelation and believe in a god, how does that help you know the attributes of god. Unless god tells you he's omnipotent, do you know that he is. Perhaps your revealed god says "I'm the god of the christian bible, and everything in it is true", and there you are, you can now be a truely rational christian. Hopefully you'll ask your god to do a bit of proof for you, to give you some more tangible evidence. Why would god make you a rational being if the one thing he asks you not to be rational about is his own existence?
Most people on this planet who believe in a god do so for no other reason that that's what they were told when they were little. They're not just told that there is a god, but which particular brand they're to follow. That's not rational, that's just hearsay evidence and means nothing.
That's why the rational course of action is to be agnostic until proven otherwise. If you've been proven otherwise, then that's fine - I'll respect that, but don't go thinking that your evidence has any meaning for me because the only evidence that matters in this issue is very personal. Everyone has to discover their own answers to these questions and make them fit with how their own brains work. That why religion in it's current "one size fits all" mentality doesn't work, for even in a specific branch of a specific religion there are vast differences in the details of belief, and that's because the religion was not personally revealed to each and every member, but passed on from one person to another in such a way that does not account for the differences in each individual.
Why turn to faith to answer questions? Why not just admit you don't know, and will never know? Why not?? It's much more honest to say I don't know when you don't know rather than invent some god being to answer the unanswerable.
If your god did exist as anything other than a figment of your imagination, what do you reckon he'd say about his own existance? Why am I here? What is the purpose of my existance? Who created me? The god concept does not answer questions but merely put them to one side.
Now you're a christian! Is this because you studied the religions of the world and came to an adult informed decision, or because that's the faith you were indoctrinated in from birth. What makes your christian religion the right one, and all the others the wrong one?
And when you look at it from the other way, that if you as a small inventor do invent something, and can afford the patent process, what do you do when you find some big company has violated it?? Do you sue them? What happens then? They find 15 patents that they own that you are in violation of and it's you that ends up bankrupt not them. Now tell me how that's different from your comunist nightmare??
Reading the patent, which is obviously a bad patent as a) not inventive, b) it's obvious, c) it's trivial, d) it's too broad, e) plenty of prior art, but it describes a system of the camera moving around an object in a spherical fashion, which is the exact oposite of what happens in a game. If they had the guts, they should go after SGI, and anyone else who has written 3d modelling software, not games companies.
Not only should the patent be removed, but the companies involved should be fined for filing a bogus patent, and the law company disbarred for filing frivolous law suits.
Alternatively, they should win their cases, and this should me more evidence of the evil of software patents, and all software patents should therefore be removed. Rant over...
Good point, but the "threat" of "SCO truth" to them is a better media bat than a website that actually proclaims "SCO truth" as: 1) their words would be used against them by IBM in a court of law 2) printing court filings would also show that SCO are loosing badly....
Again this proves that the SCO suits are all media driven to spread FUD about Linux, to help their "friends", Microsoft, and to manipulate their stock price.
Once Groklaw started to show people the facts of the case through legal filings and great research, SCO started coming undone, because we know they are Caldera, they contributed to Linux, released Unix code, helped IBM with project Monterrey and didn't object at the time to PPC AIX, indeed advertised the fact! We see their lies in their own words where they repeatedly contradict themselves.
Software should be copyrighted or protected by trade secret but NEVER patented. Software is a creative expression - not a machine. If you want to protect how you do something in code, then close the source. It should be as simple as that. Anything less than no patents for software opens all software to tyrrany from the big software corps.
In the media, all SCO go on about is copyright and IP. But copyright only makes up part of this case. IBM is suing SCO for copyright infringement over it's code in Linux, that SCO is breaking the GPL when distributing, and also selling a licence for. IBM are also asking the judge to rule that it does not break any of SCO's supposodly copyrighted code by putting it's own code in Linux. SCO cannot, and have not shown, or tried to show, in court, any copyright infringement by IBM.
But.... As SCO tries to obfuscate what it going on, they're arguing contract when the case is copyright, and copyright when the case is contract - pure misdirection.
SCO says that the AT&T contract is unambigous, and IBM says that the AT&T contract is unambiguous, but they both interperet it quite differently. Even when SCO try to bring up witnesses from the BSDi v USL case, to contradict what IBM is now getting those same witnesses to say, they fail to come up with any meaningful contradictions, and fail to note that the black and white of the contract, side letter, Echo clarification and ammendments say, which is that IBM owns what is IBM's and AT&T own what is AT&T's. IBM cannot release code that is part of the AT&T Unix source code, but IBM can release code that is there's that they also put into Unix seperately. The facts of this case, even without the witnesses say IBM is right.
SCO still haven't got Novell off their backs, and their contract with Novell plainly doesn't transfer copyrights to SCO, and SCO cannot even find the paperwork to prove that they're successor in interest to that contract, and hence the AT&T contract.
The current deluge of paperwork from SCO is an attempt to befuddle and confuse, obfuscate and delay the judicial process.
Re:It's not the music store, it's the contract
on
Beatles vs Apple
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
But the music industry have moved into the computer industry. Apple is still in the computer business when it sells music on line, just as it's still in the computer business when it sells iPods or Logic Audio. Apple are still just selling computer products, which happens, now to include audio music downloads, but because that's now part and parcel of the computer business....
I know, dodgy logic.... But times move forwards....
Current solutions work like you describe, converting the MPEG2 to an edit friendly codec. We don't yet know how Apple plan to do it for FCP5, but I'd guess they might try native MPEG2 editing...
HDCAM (not SR) records 1440 x 1080 rez downsampled from the 1920 x 1080 on the CCD. This camera takes that one step further and the CCD only has 960 x 1080, making it hardly any higher resolution than the 1280 x 720 720p resolution. Halving the horizontal rez is really taking it too far.
Slashdot Mirror
If security was an issue, the searches would make more sense though. In security, it's the weakest link that breaks, not the strongest, and current USA methods, however strong they become, however annoying they become don't affect:
1) an inside job.
2) the weaker security at the foreign airport you got on the plane at, and then you basically get free run of the secure area of the USA airport you get off at or change at
And the "ID check" is so utterly useless. There are so many documents you could use as ID, that none of the staff that do the checking (and they don't always) can really have enough time or experience to do it well enough to spot even a poor fake.
It's all about the "appearance" of being tough on evil dooers, and I'm sure most USA citizens feel oh so much "safer" that they have to take their shoes off, and wait half an hour in a queue and hae a "random" search before getting on a simple plane flight.
So yes, the ID check is "unreasonable" because it's so utterly useless. Totally and utterly. Couldn't stop a fly, and didn't stop any evil doers.
Cinemas don't seen to have a problem blowing up 35mm film to an enormous size....
Major issue with software patents cannot be solved by better searches for prior art - the only way to fix software patents is to do away with them in their entirety.
Physical things, that you can easily take apart and see how they work, are pretty good for patenting with how the current system work. Mental things should never be patentable, and software patents are just ludicrous. I bet this RTI patent does not fully disclose every detail on how their invention should work - how could they as they've never built that invention! Basically, I'd nuke any software patent straight out, and any other patent that does not basically include a dummies building instruction, or physical model that you could take apart to learn how it works should also go. Anything else is like patenting the "idea" of a thing, but not telling you exactly how the "thing" works.
Copying music is not always stealing. For instance, here in Canada it's perfectly legal. In many countries, it's perfectly legal to copy music for your own use, for the car, to a media server etc.
Copying music just to avoid paying for it, is illegal in many countries, however.
Whatever the rights and wrong of copying music, some of the "solutions" are worse crimes than the problem - ie, crippling people's computers and making them open to hackers, or taking away people's privacy.
Of course, piracy, is not schoolyard copying, but commercial copying of music, and of course, that is illegal everywhere, and could be stamped out as soon as enough effort is put into it. Commercial piracy needs pressing plants, needs sales outlets and you can track these places down and shut them down.
Don't lump software producers in with big music biz. Most software companies are small independents, and $200 is two weeks' grocery bills, not $200 towards my next BMW. This kind of fraud really hurts small biz. It's nothing like music piracy where lost sales due to copying are mostly because people would never have bought the music in the first place. In this case, a genuiine sale is made, and then the buyer pulls out after the sale has been made and the money gets clawed back. How do you think it feels to have made the sale, to give the software to the customer, only to be told they've changed their mind and you've got to give the money back, but there's no way you can get the software back?? It's fraud, it's criminal and it hurts. I know. I'm suffering from it.
What happens is people buy software, use it, like it, and feel like getting the software for free, so they cause a chargeback on the credit card, and there's practically nothing the vendor of the software can do about it, other than eat the fraud. The credit card companies care nothing about this kind of fraud, and indeed, by not investigating the claimed reason for chargeback, they're complicit with the fraudster. This kind of fraud must be costing software companies millions a year!
All reputable software companies will process a refund if necessary, if the software doesn't work, or install or whatever, but they expect you to inform them, and work with them to attempt a solution first.
You miss the point that hardware is a thing, whereas software is, in source form, a free expression of ideas, as any novel in literature is. Software embodies algorithms and algorithms are rightly not-patentable as they would limit under law the range of legal human thought.
Software is more than adequately protected by copyright. The only good solution for software patents is no software patents. I can sort of see the point of patents on hardware, but again, they need to be quality patents or the problem is worse than the solution.
Exactly!!
Most people believe what their parent's believe, right down tot he particular brand of religion.
Most people in the USA are christian. If people actually thought about what to believe and tried to find a religious belief (assuming they're going to be religious) that fitted in with their own ideas, wouldn't there be a nice random distribution among populations and variations in families?
And Atheists don't become born again - lapsed christians do! Atheists have an honest breakdown and just hit the bottle.
Please do define yourself, but I'm certain that if you're a christian then all other christians are not. I'm certain, however, that at the very least you're a theist. I'm also certain that you believe in your interpretation of the bible and that in your mind that makes you a christian, but that your interpretation will differ from every other christian's to a greater or lesser extent.
If I define myself as agnostic, then at the very least you know that I do not know whether or wether there is not a god, but that is the absolute limit of what you know about me from that definition. Personally, I extend my personal definition to be that I'm agnostic to the concept of god in general, but I'm atheist to any specific god, ie the christian god.
What I'm getting at is that "christian" has baggage attached to it that "theist", "deist", "agnostic" do not, and "atheist" does not in my mind have baggage, but to uneducated masses it is take to mean child-eater or devil worshiper.
So if you're a catholic and you do not agree with everything in the catholic faith, I think you'd be be better by not calling yourself a catholic as by doing so you lend strength to things you do not believe in. I don't think christian ONLY means believer in the christ of the bible - I do think it means an aful lot more than that.
I have read the bible and found god to be a miserable and evil bastard. Slaves should be beaten until they have many stripes on their back. I'm happy that the she bears killed the 40 children, that Pharoah's will was hardened, and I'm happy indeed to taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. And I do bring a tree into the house and decorate it at winter solstice time.
So religious believers have strength in numbers the world over - what does that mean?? The number of people believing in something has no bearing on it's validity either way.
/. for instance, and cannot use a computer, but by even allowing yourself to be associated with them by saying you're a christian, you're lending validity to their oppression. Now I'm certain you're not a christian - you have your own beliefs, and as no two christians can agree on exactly what to believe anyway, I'd be much happier if you described yourself as a theist and leave it at that.
The main issue with religious believers is that their belief is not rational and in many cases borders on madness. Unlike other bad habits, they feel it necessary to perform their bad habit in public and group together with others.
You as an individual can believe whatever you want, and I'll defend your right to believe whatever you want, but as soon as you try to organise together to oppress.... I'm not happy at all. I don't know you, you're probably not one of those oppressive types - after all that type of religious person doesn't read
Just because media science promulgates arrogance, does not mean that science is arrogant. Any scientist that says "this is the right answer, the total truth, forever" is arrogant - but they don't say that. Your media scientist is a straw man.
The true answer is always "I don't know" - but the person who has studied the available evidence will say - "the available evidence points to this or that conlusion". It does not mean that that conclusion is true, only that the available evidence points to it. When more evidence becomes available, the pointed at conclusion will change to more accurately reflect the available evidence.
So it's not a question of "possibility" but one of evidence. Faith is what you believe in when you don't have evidence. There's ample evidence out there to make a decision if you look at it without being brainwashed from birth.
What a rational person can do is look at the known facts about the christian god and decide from the available evidence if they make sense given your own personal experiences of the world. If you have a vision and god speaks to you, then there is no way for me to dissuade you from a belief in god. However, your evidence is personal evidence, and it's based upon personal experience, and is in no way valid for convincing me that there is such a god.
Even if you do have a personal revelation and believe in a god, how does that help you know the attributes of god. Unless god tells you he's omnipotent, do you know that he is. Perhaps your revealed god says "I'm the god of the christian bible, and everything in it is true", and there you are, you can now be a truely rational christian. Hopefully you'll ask your god to do a bit of proof for you, to give you some more tangible evidence. Why would god make you a rational being if the one thing he asks you not to be rational about is his own existence?
Most people on this planet who believe in a god do so for no other reason that that's what they were told when they were little. They're not just told that there is a god, but which particular brand they're to follow. That's not rational, that's just hearsay evidence and means nothing.
That's why the rational course of action is to be agnostic until proven otherwise. If you've been proven otherwise, then that's fine - I'll respect that, but don't go thinking that your evidence has any meaning for me because the only evidence that matters in this issue is very personal. Everyone has to discover their own answers to these questions and make them fit with how their own brains work. That why religion in it's current "one size fits all" mentality doesn't work, for even in a specific branch of a specific religion there are vast differences in the details of belief, and that's because the religion was not personally revealed to each and every member, but passed on from one person to another in such a way that does not account for the differences in each individual.
Why turn to faith to answer questions? Why not just admit you don't know, and will never know? Why not?? It's much more honest to say I don't know when you don't know rather than invent some god being to answer the unanswerable.
If your god did exist as anything other than a figment of your imagination, what do you reckon he'd say about his own existance? Why am I here? What is the purpose of my existance? Who created me? The god concept does not answer questions but merely put them to one side.
Now you're a christian! Is this because you studied the religions of the world and came to an adult informed decision, or because that's the faith you were indoctrinated in from birth. What makes your christian religion the right one, and all the others the wrong one?
Anything is possible if you play the redefinition game where common understandings go out of the window.
If kind and loving mean anything, they have to have meaning now, not in some perpetual afterlife.
And when you look at it from the other way, that if you as a small inventor do invent something, and can afford the patent process, what do you do when you find some big company has violated it?? Do you sue them? What happens then? They find 15 patents that they own that you are in violation of and it's you that ends up bankrupt not them. Now tell me how that's different from your comunist nightmare??
Reading the patent, which is obviously a bad patent as a) not inventive, b) it's obvious, c) it's trivial, d) it's too broad, e) plenty of prior art, but it describes a system of the camera moving around an object in a spherical fashion, which is the exact oposite of what happens in a game. If they had the guts, they should go after SGI, and anyone else who has written 3d modelling software, not games companies.
Not only should the patent be removed, but the companies involved should be fined for filing a bogus patent, and the law company disbarred for filing frivolous law suits.
Alternatively, they should win their cases, and this should me more evidence of the evil of software patents, and all software patents should therefore be removed. Rant over...
Good point, but the "threat" of "SCO truth" to them is a better media bat than a website that actually proclaims "SCO truth" as:
1) their words would be used against them by IBM in a court of law
2) printing court filings would also show that SCO are loosing badly....
Again this proves that the SCO suits are all media driven to spread FUD about Linux, to help their "friends", Microsoft, and to manipulate their stock price.
Once Groklaw started to show people the facts of the case through legal filings and great research, SCO started coming undone, because we know they are Caldera, they contributed to Linux, released Unix code, helped IBM with project Monterrey and didn't object at the time to PPC AIX, indeed advertised the fact! We see their lies in their own words where they repeatedly contradict themselves.
Software should be copyrighted or protected by trade secret but NEVER patented. Software is a creative expression - not a machine. If you want to protect how you do something in code, then close the source. It should be as simple as that. Anything less than no patents for software opens all software to tyrrany from the big software corps.
The verdict was sealed, but that was it.
However, SCO told IBM, when IBM asked in discovery if they had any information about that case that they did not - yet another SCO lie.
In the media, all SCO go on about is copyright and IP. But copyright only makes up part of this case. IBM is suing SCO for copyright infringement over it's code in Linux, that SCO is breaking the GPL when distributing, and also selling a licence for. IBM are also asking the judge to rule that it does not break any of SCO's supposodly copyrighted code by putting it's own code in Linux. SCO cannot, and have not shown, or tried to show, in court, any copyright infringement by IBM.
But.... As SCO tries to obfuscate what it going on, they're arguing contract when the case is copyright, and copyright when the case is contract - pure misdirection.
SCO says that the AT&T contract is unambigous, and IBM says that the AT&T contract is unambiguous, but they both interperet it quite differently. Even when SCO try to bring up witnesses from the BSDi v USL case, to contradict what IBM is now getting those same witnesses to say, they fail to come up with any meaningful contradictions, and fail to note that the black and white of the contract, side letter, Echo clarification and ammendments say, which is that IBM owns what is IBM's and AT&T own what is AT&T's. IBM cannot release code that is part of the AT&T Unix source code, but IBM can release code that is there's that they also put into Unix seperately. The facts of this case, even without the witnesses say IBM is right.
SCO still haven't got Novell off their backs, and their contract with Novell plainly doesn't transfer copyrights to SCO, and SCO cannot even find the paperwork to prove that they're successor in interest to that contract, and hence the AT&T contract.
The current deluge of paperwork from SCO is an attempt to befuddle and confuse, obfuscate and delay the judicial process.
But the music industry have moved into the computer industry. Apple is still in the computer business when it sells music on line, just as it's still in the computer business when it sells iPods or Logic Audio. Apple are still just selling computer products, which happens, now to include audio music downloads, but because that's now part and parcel of the computer business....
I know, dodgy logic.... But times move forwards....
Current solutions work like you describe, converting the MPEG2 to an edit friendly codec. We don't yet know how Apple plan to do it for FCP5, but I'd guess they might try native MPEG2 editing...
either way, having a 960x1080 CCD array is going to seriously compromise the horizontal resolution on this camera - ouch.
HDCAM (not SR) records 1440 x 1080 rez downsampled from the 1920 x 1080 on the CCD. This camera takes that one step further and the CCD only has 960 x 1080, making it hardly any higher resolution than the 1280 x 720 720p resolution. Halving the horizontal rez is really taking it too far.