Never underestimate Nazi brains, and be very glad (Frenchies especially) Hitler had syphillis and was quite bonkers. You would all be driving around in volkswagons, wearing lederhosen, talking german, paying in deutche mark, and working in the mines to keep the germans even fatter. Just a thought, but I've always considered that the Germans were lucky to have lost the war when they did. Why?
The atomic bomb. It's easy to forget that it was developed in response to fears that the Germans might develop one first (which makes it ironic that it was the Japanese that it was ultimately used against). It might be easy in retrospect to say that they weren't realistically close to having one during WWII, but this wasn't so clear at the time.
And even if this *had* become known towards the end of the (prolonged) war, the Americans would have had the bomb by then, and- I suspect- little tolerance for letting the Germans prolong the war and giving Stalin a chance to sweep further across Europe (never was the difference between "friend" and "allie" more clear)- even if Germany couldn't win.
If the Nazis had still stood a plausible chance of winning- or even "drawing"- the war by the time the bomb was ready, then it's near-certain that at least one bomb would have been dropped on the country. It's the kind of thing that some people would say is terrible in retrospect. However, given what Nazi Germany *did* do (with the support of most of their people) and what they would have done had they won the war, I'd personally have considered it morally justifiable (and imperative) to use as many atomic bombs as necessary to bring the war to a swift conclusion.
We have a 12 year old in our guild, I hate being on runs with him because everyone changes their attitude from fun (includes swearing etc), to some babysitter mode. That's ironic; as adults, your desire to set a good example in front of a 12-year-old overrides the fact that you'd swear and behave badly... despite the fact that if he wasn't with you, he'd be talking and behaving just as badly if not worse.:)
Absolutely. Da Vinci executed his paintings (actually, everything he did) with mathematical precision, and what is music but a mathematical language, Bach being the example that stands out in my mind right now? With sophisticated enough technology, we'll be finding musical notes in Jackson Pollock's paintings Yes; I'm kind of sceptical of claims such as
"There's always a risk of seeing something that is not there, but it's certain that the spaces [in the painting] are divided harmonically," he told the AP. "Where you have harmonic proportions, you can find music." Where compositions are methodically laid out in an aesthetically pleasing way, chances are that will lend itself to non-random patterns that sound nice. (And that's on top of everything everyone else said). This really doesn't prove anything in itself.
Anyway, I've used technology to determine what the lyrics to this piece of music are:-
Last Supper I Gave You My Heart,
But the very next day, you betrayed me and had me crucified.
This year, to save me from tears,
I'll give it to someone who's special.
There's a not-American? When? I just finished watching the news and they never said nothing about other countries. (What is that?!);-) Look it up on the map; it's the bit that says "here be dragons".
Obviously, you cared enough to read it and post a comment. It's not until you read the story and listen to this supposedly wonderful "sound" that you realise how lame and pointless the whole thing is. Nothing against the sound- it's mildly unusual, and an interesting enough attempt- but certainly nothing that warrants a front page, mainly because the accompanying story provides no insight into it beyond "it was meant to be the test sound, but we kept it on". Not living in the US, I wasn't familiar with "Google 411" so wondered what the deal with this sound was.
There isn't one.
And having taken the time to read the story and listen to the sound, it's fair to say how pointless it is.:)
He'll get 5 years at a country club and a bunch of great job offers after he gets out. You heard it here first. Actually, I suspect that there's going to be a major perceived difference between someone who has simply hacked into others' computers in the past, and someone who has specifically exploited the trust of and targeted those who employed him to protect their PCs.
Would I trust a former black-hat hacker to protect my computers? Possibly. Would I trust someone who has specifically targeted and screwed over his clients in the past- the people who paid him good money to protect them from such behaviour? Would I fuck.
Dvorak is turning into a cranky old man That's arguably a fair criticism.
who can't read the small type anymore. And that's not. It's a fact of life that people's eyesight deteriorates as they get older, and if someone finds it difficult to use a device that doesn't take account of this, it's perfectly reasonable to complain about it.
Technology may traditionally have been used, designed by and (arguably) oriented towards the younger end of the market- and to some extent that is self-reinforcing. But that's not to say that things *should* be that way. The world is far more technologically-oriented than it used to be, and to imply that people over a certain age should have to adapt to technologies designed by (and for) twentysomethings with near-perfect eyesight- rather than the technologies adapting to them- is straightforward prejudice.
Yes, the young often feel that the world should revolve around them and resent the old- just as the old often resent the young for the same reason. But neither is a basis for fair criticism.
To be pedantic, nobody *forces* you to use any service plan... it's more a consequence of your *choice* to use the iPhone. You're right; you *are* being pedantic, and wilfully so. Context and common-sense very strongly suggest that the condition "if you want to use the iPhone" was implicit in his original statement.
I agree that many people whine about particular aspects of products while seemingly ignoring the fact that they don't *have* to buy it... but you picked the wrong whipping boy in this case.
I fight terrorism with superior firepower. Then straight off the bat you've proved that you're stupid and don't have a clue. It's so easy to fight some random unknown guy in a crowd with a bomb with "superior firepower", isn't it?
If the bastards aren't afraid to die for their beliefs then let them. Turn their country of origin into a smoking wasteland "The United States was today turned into a smoking wasteland when the country launched an attack on itself in revenge for the terrorist attack on the United States by Timothy McVeigh."
Ho ho ho... as I said, you *are* stupid. And disregarding that, you seriously think that such threats- whether or not they were carried out- would do anything other than harden the resolve of a fundamentalist nutcase? On the contrary, this is exactly what such people want.
Maybe if the governments and the civilian populations understand that there are consequences to harboring and aiding terrorists they will get off of their asses and do some internal house cleaning. Mmm... after turning the country into a smoking wasteland, I don't think the government (if they still exist in any notable form) is going to have much power to stop the terrorists, do you?
You really are the blowhard right-winger who has all the answers, aren't you?
If today the US said, "Cease all hostilities against our forces in Iraq within 72 hours or we will turn a section of baghdad into smoking glass." we would be ignored. If we then CARRIED THROUGH on the threat then the second time we said it we'd get a response. Yes, the number of terrorist attacks both within and outside the United States would skyrocket and every other country in the world (Muslim or not) would arm themselves to the teeth.
(Your signature): I hurt people for fun. I bet you kick over anthills for fun. That shows those ants who's boss, huh?
Oops... my second reply. Sorry, got absorbed in the sound of my own voice with the other one:-/
random play was quite random Do you mean it was *actually* random or that it sounded "random"? Most people don't want *truly* random play because the laws of chance dictate that (through sheer coincidence) you *will* get runs of songs by the same artist, or of a similar style, or whatever.
the use of a file-browser UI (Most important. I would never buy a player without this), that it mounted as a standard usb-mass storage device As far as I'm concerned that would be a major plus-point too.
Ah, fair enough. And half an hour to fill a 6GB drive isn't bad, because you'd only have to do it once. Whereas with a circa 32MB device, even if it "only" took 10 minutes to fill the whole 32MB, you'd still have to do that for every album.
This actually demonstrates a fundamental *qualitative* difference between the two MP3 devices. Because of its small memory, the 32MB model forces one to treat it as an album-oriented music device (like a CD or cassette player), whereas the much larger players (4GB-plus) are essentially archives of music from which you can pick and choose and they don't need refilled often, if at all.
No-one is going to bother picking and choosing songs *every* time they want to upload an hour's worth of music to the 32MB device (so that's no advantage); in fact, since you can't even carry extra music like you would spare CDs or tapes, skipping tunes would quickly leave you at the end of your selection. So the theoretical random access isn't actually that big a benefit over the cassette Walkman.
It's interesting because it demonstrates how two fundamentally similar devices (both technically and operationally) can in effect belong to different generations. The 32MB player was just a smaller iPod? Well, perhaps. But it couldn't be used in the way that most people use their iPods.
My old mp3-player from around 1998-1999 was great and every time it broke I went looking for a new one, found them to be crap and fixed my old one instead. Uh.... weren't the MP3 players from around that time (a) around the 32MB mark and (b) Connected via the horribly slow serial/parallel ports? (Yes, I know USB was around then, but it wasn't really supported on the PC for another couple of years).
I remember seeing reviews of them; they were expensive, and took ages to fill with a meagre hour's worth of music. They struck me as pointless geek toys; you'd have been better off with a CD- or even cassette- Walkman.
Obviously the situation is rather different nowadays(!)
(I can't remember if the Atari situation was also about money. However, you're certainly right that credits- and respect- was an issue. They didn't let their programmers/designers get credits, and the head famously stated that they were no more important than "towel designers").
Xbox360 dies on you So did the PSX's laser, for those of us who remember. Later, the hardware got better. Not nearly to the same degree. It's like comparing the WWII wartime atrocities record of Japan vs Canada. Dear, oh dear.
Dear, oh dear, oh dear. I know it's a change from stupid car analogies, but did you really just decide that this was the most appropriate example to use in this case?!
I was going to complain that you didn't even properly Godwin it, but I'm sure that if we follow your reasoning, then it can be implied that Shigeru Miyamoto is Adolf Hitler or something.;-)
Funny that you should mention Commodore... I was thinking of the Plus/4, their infamous flop machine that came with four applications built in. They were as crude as hell, not to mention very restricted. (As one of the few differences between the C16 and the far more expensive Plus/4, you'd have thought they'd have put some effort into it).
As someone commented on the Wired page, waking up from sleep or even hibernation modes doesn't take long, and even ignoring that I remain to be convinced that this is a big deal- slap a very cut-down Linux and some apps on a ROM and you could do the same thing. Of course, it could be argued that however it's done, this is more than enough functionality for some people, but then we're getting into the different field of bare bones computers.
You're 100% correct that this is the BIOS companies attempt to stay relevant. It's a solution in search of a problem.
Ahh...the Internet. Bringing you in touch with people who think that because they throw an 'N' into their blather, it becomes a 'mathematical' argument. Or that you can quantify things like the "health effect of smoking 1 cigarette on someone less than 18" and plop it into a faux equation. I heartily agree with this; there's a major tendency on Slashdot and the like to apply mathematics and mathematical logic to social arguments, but an inability in many cases for those involved to know (or care) whether this is appropriate or not.
When it comes down to it, it's an intellectual wank-fest that has little to do with the real world.
With respect to the cigarette debate, I believe that everyone missed one rather obvious point; we have to draw the line between childhood and adulthood somewhere. We protect children from things that may damage them because we don't believe that they have the maturity to trust their own judgement- yet at some stage we have to let go.
Now, you can disagree with or pick holes in what I just said when applied to the discussion in question. However, flawed or not, it's still a fairly obvious line of reasoning, and the fact that it didn't occur to any of those involved shows how far up their own pseudo-mathematical arses they were.
To clarify, this:-
DSLR prices have fallen *drastically* in the past few years- four or so years ago, they were closer to UK £2000, three years ago they were still hovering around the £1000 mark. It's only in the past couple of years that they've really fallen to the sub-£400 level of late-1990s film SLRs that Joe Public could (or is willing) pay.
Before that, consumer-price digital cameras *were* integrated devices (either compacts or "bridge" cameras) with non-changeable lenses. ...was discussing affordable *still* DSLRs, and trying to make the point that they've not been around long either. Of course, affordable film SLRs have been around much longer.
I think you're missing the point. It's not about having "SLR" video cameras. I wasn't really suggesting that it was; that was (bad) paraphrasing of what the article was about.
However, if you want an affordable digital video camera, you are stuck with a totally "integrated" device that you can't change the lenses on DSLR prices have fallen *drastically* in the past few years- four or so years ago, they were closer to UK £2000, three years ago they were still hovering around the £1000 mark. It's only in the past couple of years that they've really fallen to the sub-£400 level of late-1990s film SLRs that Joe Public could (or is willing) pay.
Before that, consumer-price digital cameras *were* integrated devices (either compacts or "bridge" cameras) with non-changeable lenses.
Three things to consider; firstly, I think videography is now approaching a state where the basic sensor and electronics won't cost any more than those used for still photography.... but it's not quite there yet.
Secondly, the market for "serious" videography is still relatively small, so that's probably holding things back. Of course, that's a vicious circle "chicken and egg" situation that will probably be broken sooner rather than later than the "virtuous circle" caused by falling HD video equipment prices. But my point is that although affordable camcorders have been around for over 20 years, for most of that time they've never really been capable of "professional" results; so this has probably stifled development of the "serious amateur" videography market that would drive demand for the cameras you and the article describe. So IMHO, there's a bit of cultural lag too.
Thirdly, there's one other serious problem with amateur videography that won't be so easily overcome. It's possible- if you have the skill- to take a professional-looking still photograph with a half-decent consumer SLR and some patience. But filmmaking is inherently an altogether more involved business, and even if the cameras cost next to nothing, you're still going to need a moderately expensive setup- and likely quite a few people- to shoot footage that actually looks professional.
In short, it's going to cost you a lot more time and hassle to shoot something that doesn't look "cheap". This, I suspect, is the other reason that serious videography hasn't taken off.
My beef with the people who believe still and video photography are going to converge I don't know if you included me in that; however, I was careful to suggest that whilst the technologies may converge to some extent, I was not suggesting that the actual fields themselves would merge.
Both are trying to do something different, which is why I stated that different devices may still be required for each, because even if the underlying technology was similar, the ideal handling and design of a device intended for still photography would not be the same as a device whose purpose was videography.
When I checked the company, they had a website that stated something to the effect:
"If you received a charge to your credit card for us, it is for services that we provided and it is not a fradulent charge." Well, they would say that, would't they?!
To be fair, I don't know the context of the comment or how much you were paraphrasing, but it seems that any company that felt the need to bring the subject up in that manner *and* then attempted to dismiss any problems in advance knows that something shady is going on.
If they really were legit, they'd know where the (limited) problem areas were, not have to explain it like that, and have a good explanation, not a handwaving generic "if something's wrong, we did nothing wrong, it's your fault and we're not going to discuss it".
With interlaced TV and video signals, you are sending twice the amount of half-frames (fields) per second, not the same amount. In other words, instead of 30 full frames, you send 60 half-frames. In other words, the grandparent was correct: you are sending the same information, just formatted differently. That would only apply if you converted from an original source that had 24/25/30 *complete* frames per second.
With cinema films (for example), there are 24 complete frames. Ignoring pulldown (which only applies to 30/60 fps NTSC), the same frame will effectively be scanned twice. Once for the odd-numbered fields, once for the even-numbered ones (or possibly vice versa). Since it's the same image being scanned on both occasions, in this case what you say is true; two fields make up one complete frame, and the order makes no difference.
However, this does not apply to material shot on *traditional* video cameras that run at 50/60 fields per second. Remember that these were analogue devices that effectively have no memory, so if a moving object is being filmed, then between the odd-numbered lines having been stored, the object will have moved and will be in a different position when the even-numbered lines are videoed.
This gives moving objects greater temporal resolution at the expense of vertical spatial resolution. But you're much less likely to notice the latter on moving objects, so it's a good tradeoff (even if it was done to reduce flicker). (The increased temporal resolution of 50/60fps video versus 24fps film is one of the main reasons that film and video look different).
So, unless the object is static (or very near-static), it's incorrect to imply- in the case of material originally shot on interlaced video- that two fields equal one complete frame. They don't. It looks okay when it's moving fast on the TV, but take a still "frame" made from adjacent fields and you'll see they don't mesh.
It's not that the same information is being transmitted in a different order; it's that no "complete" frames are being broadcast.
Slashdot Mirror
The atomic bomb. It's easy to forget that it was developed in response to fears that the Germans might develop one first (which makes it ironic that it was the Japanese that it was ultimately used against). It might be easy in retrospect to say that they weren't realistically close to having one during WWII, but this wasn't so clear at the time.
And even if this *had* become known towards the end of the (prolonged) war, the Americans would have had the bomb by then, and- I suspect- little tolerance for letting the Germans prolong the war and giving Stalin a chance to sweep further across Europe (never was the difference between "friend" and "allie" more clear)- even if Germany couldn't win.
If the Nazis had still stood a plausible chance of winning- or even "drawing"- the war by the time the bomb was ready, then it's near-certain that at least one bomb would have been dropped on the country. It's the kind of thing that some people would say is terrible in retrospect. However, given what Nazi Germany *did* do (with the support of most of their people) and what they would have done had they won the war, I'd personally have considered it morally justifiable (and imperative) to use as many atomic bombs as necessary to bring the war to a swift conclusion.
As I said, they were damn lucky.
Anyway, I've used technology to determine what the lyrics to this piece of music are:- Last Supper I Gave You My Heart,
But the very next day, you betrayed me and had me crucified.
This year, to save me from tears,
I'll give it to someone who's special.
There isn't one.
And having taken the time to read the story and listen to the sound, it's fair to say how pointless it is.
Would I trust a former black-hat hacker to protect my computers? Possibly. Would I trust someone who has specifically targeted and screwed over his clients in the past- the people who paid him good money to protect them from such behaviour? Would I fuck.
Technology may traditionally have been used, designed by and (arguably) oriented towards the younger end of the market- and to some extent that is self-reinforcing. But that's not to say that things *should* be that way. The world is far more technologically-oriented than it used to be, and to imply that people over a certain age should have to adapt to technologies designed by (and for) twentysomethings with near-perfect eyesight- rather than the technologies adapting to them- is straightforward prejudice.
Yes, the young often feel that the world should revolve around them and resent the old- just as the old often resent the young for the same reason. But neither is a basis for fair criticism.
I agree that many people whine about particular aspects of products while seemingly ignoring the fact that they don't *have* to buy it... but you picked the wrong whipping boy in this case.
Ho ho ho... as I said, you *are* stupid. And disregarding that, you seriously think that such threats- whether or not they were carried out- would do anything other than harden the resolve of a fundamentalist nutcase? On the contrary, this is exactly what such people want. Maybe if the governments and the civilian populations understand that there are consequences to harboring and aiding terrorists they will get off of their asses and do some internal house cleaning. Mmm... after turning the country into a smoking wasteland, I don't think the government (if they still exist in any notable form) is going to have much power to stop the terrorists, do you?
You really are the blowhard right-winger who has all the answers, aren't you? If today the US said, "Cease all hostilities against our forces in Iraq within 72 hours or we will turn a section of baghdad into smoking glass." we would be ignored. If we then CARRIED THROUGH on the threat then the second time we said it we'd get a response. Yes, the number of terrorist attacks both within and outside the United States would skyrocket and every other country in the world (Muslim or not) would arm themselves to the teeth. (Your signature): I hurt people for fun. I bet you kick over anthills for fun. That shows those ants who's boss, huh?
the use of a file-browser UI (Most important. I would never buy a player without this), that it mounted as a standard usb-mass storage device As far as I'm concerned that would be a major plus-point too.
Ah, fair enough. And half an hour to fill a 6GB drive isn't bad, because you'd only have to do it once. Whereas with a circa 32MB device, even if it "only" took 10 minutes to fill the whole 32MB, you'd still have to do that for every album.
This actually demonstrates a fundamental *qualitative* difference between the two MP3 devices. Because of its small memory, the 32MB model forces one to treat it as an album-oriented music device (like a CD or cassette player), whereas the much larger players (4GB-plus) are essentially archives of music from which you can pick and choose and they don't need refilled often, if at all.
No-one is going to bother picking and choosing songs *every* time they want to upload an hour's worth of music to the 32MB device (so that's no advantage); in fact, since you can't even carry extra music like you would spare CDs or tapes, skipping tunes would quickly leave you at the end of your selection. So the theoretical random access isn't actually that big a benefit over the cassette Walkman.
It's interesting because it demonstrates how two fundamentally similar devices (both technically and operationally) can in effect belong to different generations. The 32MB player was just a smaller iPod? Well, perhaps. But it couldn't be used in the way that most people use their iPods.
I remember seeing reviews of them; they were expensive, and took ages to fill with a meagre hour's worth of music. They struck me as pointless geek toys; you'd have been better off with a CD- or even cassette- Walkman.
(Disregard comment about EA being the subject of the article- I was getting it confused with the other story about the XO laptop).
Ironically, the subject of this article, and the archetypal "work their faceless employees until they drop" company- EA- used to be very big on giving credit to their programmers and creators in their early days.
Obviously the situation is rather different nowadays(!)
(I can't remember if the Atari situation was also about money. However, you're certainly right that credits- and respect- was an issue. They didn't let their programmers/designers get credits, and the head famously stated that they were no more important than "towel designers").
Microsoft already used the "screwed up face with tongue stuck out in disgust" in the name of their successor to Windows 2000.
Dear, oh dear, oh dear. I know it's a change from stupid car analogies, but did you really just decide that this was the most appropriate example to use in this case?!
I was going to complain that you didn't even properly Godwin it, but I'm sure that if we follow your reasoning, then it can be implied that Shigeru Miyamoto is Adolf Hitler or something.
Funny that you should mention Commodore... I was thinking of the Plus/4, their infamous flop machine that came with four applications built in. They were as crude as hell, not to mention very restricted. (As one of the few differences between the C16 and the far more expensive Plus/4, you'd have thought they'd have put some effort into it).
As someone commented on the Wired page, waking up from sleep or even hibernation modes doesn't take long, and even ignoring that I remain to be convinced that this is a big deal- slap a very cut-down Linux and some apps on a ROM and you could do the same thing. Of course, it could be argued that however it's done, this is more than enough functionality for some people, but then we're getting into the different field of bare bones computers.
You're 100% correct that this is the BIOS companies attempt to stay relevant. It's a solution in search of a problem.
When it comes down to it, it's an intellectual wank-fest that has little to do with the real world.
With respect to the cigarette debate, I believe that everyone missed one rather obvious point; we have to draw the line between childhood and adulthood somewhere. We protect children from things that may damage them because we don't believe that they have the maturity to trust their own judgement- yet at some stage we have to let go.
Now, you can disagree with or pick holes in what I just said when applied to the discussion in question. However, flawed or not, it's still a fairly obvious line of reasoning, and the fact that it didn't occur to any of those involved shows how far up their own pseudo-mathematical arses they were.
Before that, consumer-price digital cameras *were* integrated devices (either compacts or "bridge" cameras) with non-changeable lenses. ...was discussing affordable *still* DSLRs, and trying to make the point that they've not been around long either. Of course, affordable film SLRs have been around much longer.
Before that, consumer-price digital cameras *were* integrated devices (either compacts or "bridge" cameras) with non-changeable lenses.
Three things to consider; firstly, I think videography is now approaching a state where the basic sensor and electronics won't cost any more than those used for still photography.... but it's not quite there yet.
Secondly, the market for "serious" videography is still relatively small, so that's probably holding things back. Of course, that's a vicious circle "chicken and egg" situation that will probably be broken sooner rather than later than the "virtuous circle" caused by falling HD video equipment prices. But my point is that although affordable camcorders have been around for over 20 years, for most of that time they've never really been capable of "professional" results; so this has probably stifled development of the "serious amateur" videography market that would drive demand for the cameras you and the article describe. So IMHO, there's a bit of cultural lag too.
Thirdly, there's one other serious problem with amateur videography that won't be so easily overcome. It's possible- if you have the skill- to take a professional-looking still photograph with a half-decent consumer SLR and some patience. But filmmaking is inherently an altogether more involved business, and even if the cameras cost next to nothing, you're still going to need a moderately expensive setup- and likely quite a few people- to shoot footage that actually looks professional.
In short, it's going to cost you a lot more time and hassle to shoot something that doesn't look "cheap". This, I suspect, is the other reason that serious videography hasn't taken off.
Both are trying to do something different, which is why I stated that different devices may still be required for each, because even if the underlying technology was similar, the ideal handling and design of a device intended for still photography would not be the same as a device whose purpose was videography.
That aside, I agree with what you said.
To be fair, I don't know the context of the comment or how much you were paraphrasing, but it seems that any company that felt the need to bring the subject up in that manner *and* then attempted to dismiss any problems in advance knows that something shady is going on.
If they really were legit, they'd know where the (limited) problem areas were, not have to explain it like that, and have a good explanation, not a handwaving generic "if something's wrong, we did nothing wrong, it's your fault and we're not going to discuss it".
BTW, what did the CC company say?
With cinema films (for example), there are 24 complete frames. Ignoring pulldown (which only applies to 30/60 fps NTSC), the same frame will effectively be scanned twice. Once for the odd-numbered fields, once for the even-numbered ones (or possibly vice versa). Since it's the same image being scanned on both occasions, in this case what you say is true; two fields make up one complete frame, and the order makes no difference.
However, this does not apply to material shot on *traditional* video cameras that run at 50/60 fields per second. Remember that these were analogue devices that effectively have no memory, so if a moving object is being filmed, then between the odd-numbered lines having been stored, the object will have moved and will be in a different position when the even-numbered lines are videoed.
This gives moving objects greater temporal resolution at the expense of vertical spatial resolution. But you're much less likely to notice the latter on moving objects, so it's a good tradeoff (even if it was done to reduce flicker). (The increased temporal resolution of 50/60fps video versus 24fps film is one of the main reasons that film and video look different).
So, unless the object is static (or very near-static), it's incorrect to imply- in the case of material originally shot on interlaced video- that two fields equal one complete frame. They don't. It looks okay when it's moving fast on the TV, but take a still "frame" made from adjacent fields and you'll see they don't mesh.
It's not that the same information is being transmitted in a different order; it's that no "complete" frames are being broadcast.