Perhaps the ultimate goal of these lawsuits is not to actually recoup losses or find new modes of profit, but rather to kill any system in which commoners are not reliant on some corporation to provide service for them.
The intent of the media cartels is to eliminate any and all technologies which can be used to distribute content outside of cartel-owned channels, regardless of any consequences to individuals or society at large. Period. End of statement. If these bastards could have assassinated the original DoD working group that developed TCP/IP and the principles of packet routing they would have done so in a heartbeat. But that would have required the ability to look further than the end of their own collective nose. Forward thinking is not a specialty of monopolies or cartels.
Honest to God, look at the history of the motion picture industry, especially their take on home video recording. Remember Jack "I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone" Valenti? Maybe you don't, but if not, remember than the VCR eventually resulted in billions of dollars of revenue that would never have been realized if their shortsighted attempts to have it banned in the U.S. had been successful. The music industry is no better: they successfully killed off DAT (a nifty technology) and even managed to get a tax levied on blank media sold in the U.S. You know, to compensate the "artists" for their presumed losses due to (ahem!) "piracy", regardless of whether that media was used to illegally copy anything whatsoever. They then reneged on that deal (.e.g, the Audio Home Recording Act), and started suing people for fun and profit anyway. Fuckers, all of them. Personally, I think law enforcement dollars would be much better spent investigating the largely foreign-owned corporations that comprise the so-called content industry, and protecting citizens from the depredations of their pressure groups than, say, all the grandstanding going on around Google.
I have no respect at all for these people (and I use the term loosely) since most of their problems are due to a sociopathic need to control, and a complete inability to understand that the world is a very different place now that the Internet is here. They could and should be making more money than every before using new technologies and opportunities afforded by the Internet age, just as they made billions by selling VHS tapes. But they can't see that: all they want is to control distribution so they can charge whatever they believe we'll cough up. Competition be damned. I suppose it doesn't hurt that the RIAA proved that racketeering, frivolous lawsuits, perjury, forced settlements, intimidation and destroyed families can be so darn profitable.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a good starting point. The golden rule has been around longer than pretty much every surviving religion, and can be traced back in written form to Hammurabi's "do unto others as they did to you" Code, though the concept of retribution almost certainly predates even that.
There are other good tests too. "What would happen if everyone did this?" "Does this act require the use of force?" etc.
All sin lines in hurting other people unnecessarily --- Robert A. Heinlein
I'm referring to newer AMD integrated graphics, which are far better than Intel's...
Gotcha. Yes, ATI really invested a lot in media handling, I agree. Hardware MPEG decoding, etc. And yeah, the HDMI output was great, once I figured out where my 100% CPU was going under XP (Microsoft's UAA driver, disabled that and everything worked fine.)
From where I'm sitting, they bought and assimilated Doubleclick. If you want to talk to me about Google and Ethics, I expect a period between them.
Sure, and Double-Click was run by a bunch of bad dudes, and Google sells targeted advertising. Now, that is an organized form of privacy invasion, no argument. My point is that there are far more dangerous organizations out there from a privacy point of view, companies whose sole reason for existence is to sell profiles on every American citizen to anyone that can meet their price (and their low standards of "legitimacy".) Choicepoint got thoroughly fleeced a few years ago by an identity-theft operation that set up several fake front companies, and purchased profiles on a large number of U.S. citizens. Bought them, outright. They also suffered a security breach where thieves simply stole computers from their offices: their security was so poor that they didn't even physically secure our data, they had millions of records stored on regular office machines. Nobody knows if that information was misused, or if the thieves just wanted the hardware, but still. So I'm sorry, you can bitch about Google all you want, but we do get some cool free services in exchange for its data mining. So-called "data aggregators" like Choicepoint offer little benefit to the public, and really shouldn't be allowed. Or, if not disbanded entirely, should be heavily regulated, and severely penalized when they screw up.
Google, for all it's power and potential for abuse, hasn't really done anything anywhere near as damaging as Choicepoint does simply by staying in business. Another poster recently informed me that Choicepoint was, in turn, assimilated by Lexis-Nexis, another huge bastion of ethical behavior. So, if you want to pick on an outfit that is in the business of selling your privacy wholesale, Google really isn't at the top of the list. They're just the highest profile, from the public's point of view, and that's where politicians find it most rewarding to operate. Mounting an effective defense of our privacy from corporate abuse would require them to target companies that few people have even heard about, which is not a good way to get re-elected.
It's legal EXTORTION. In the US, they terms are not mutually exclusive. I suspect the same to be true in most places. After all - the US didn't invent the professional lawyer, we just feed ours better than most places.
Some people feed pet sharks too. Doesn't mean you're supposed to let them into the swimming pool.
Put up or shut up. "Look, I don't need to explain myself, I'm an expert and you're a cretin" is below your usual standards. If you are an expert then we lurkers on the thread would like to hear your reasoning, expertly-drawn historical case studies included.
Oh, cut the guy some slack for Chrissakes. You admit he's pretty good, and want to pick on him for one annoyed post. Even the experts get irritated by hecklers now and then.
Also, many johns and drug buyers are now caught in asset forfeiture nets if they use a car, cell phone, or some other piece of easily seizable property to commit the illegal act. That helps pay for the extra cops and corrections officers.
Yeah, RICO Act stuff. Nasty-ass law, really, it is. And it's being applied to otherwise law-abiding citizens. The Feds have agents combing law-enforcement records looking for "asset forfeiture opportunities." Some years ago a couple who discovered their own son growing a pot plant turned him in to the local cops, basically to teach him a lesson. He got a wrist slap and that was that, or so they thought. A Fed got hold of that information and got everything they owned, house, bank accounts, everything, seized under RICO. That's just wrong. I never followed up on that to see if they ever got any redress, but the whole point of asset forfeiture is to prevent the "accused" (and I use the term loosely here) from having the resources to fight back. I hate to use the term "unAmerican" because it has so many other connotations, but if ever there was such a thing this is it.
The evil part of this is that the local cops are often given a cut of the take (that may sound like I'm calling it graft, but that's about how I feel about it) so they have no incentive to stand up for their own citizens.
Of course, some people mature from their early 20s sex-insanity, realize that sex isn't everything, and then actually love the person they get married to, and have a nice life after that.
True. But it's also true that many don't. They just don't, they'll never have anything resembling a "normal" relationship and probably shouldn't even try. So far as I'm concerned, a thriving, legitimate prostitution industry would keep them happy, and furthermore keep them from competing for those nice women that those of us who did grow up are trying to find.
Stop forcing YOUR morality on others. It's a choice, both by the service provider, and by the customer
IF it's a choice on the part of the sex worker, then I agree. But under the current anti-prostitution regulations we have, it quite frequently isn't. The only way to make sure that women are a. in it for the money because they want to be and b. aren't horribly abused in the process is... make it legal. Put prostitutes under the labor law umbrella, and hire the requisite bureaucracy to enforce those laws for the hooker's benefit. Then let them organize, form their own unions if they want, and ply their trade free of the general nastiness they have to suffer now.
I'm sort of wondering how this can be insightful. Is it being honest but naive? Is it sarcastic?
If you don't think a pimp can drag an unwilling female around the country and advertise her services on Craigslist that's pretty naive. But then you seem to be a European so naivete, willful ignorance, and overlooking atrocities are par for the course.
Well, I think yoiu're confusing the moderator's stupidity with the poster's intent. Personally, I would've modded him "funny". and not bothered to insult him.
But enjoying physically and psychologically harmful working conditions day after day and believing (correctly or otherwise) that there's no way out is likely more harmful than hearing one lie about how pretty your eyes are.
Well, I'm not really going to argue with you there. However, like smoking, drinking and recreational drugs (same thing, really), gambling or any other vice, the reality is that a certain subset of the population (any population) is going to engage in them. They create the demand, it will never, ever go away, and every society has to decide how to deal with that. We, of all peoples on this planet, should understand that prohibiting that for which there is a significant demand doesn't work. Not with alcohol, not with pot, not with prostitution, and the more you try to use force to drive [insert 'undesirable' behavior here] from your society, the more problems you tend to create.
So, you have to examine why a prostitute would be trapped, would be compelled to remain a hooker. I can tell you why: it's because the hypermoralistic types have prevented that woman from ever having a way out. If prostitution were legal and heavily-regulated as it is in some other countries, that probably wouldn't be the case. It would just be another a new job classification under existing labor laws, and the same protections afforded to every other worker would be available to your local hooker. An entire legion of bureaucrats would have to be hired to enforce those laws. Right now, a prostitute (who may very well not have entered the oldest profession willingly) is squeezed between the hoods that run the operation, and cops who have no particular mandate to help her because she's a criminal. Let more legitimate business interests run the trade ("Remember the HP Lay") and that issue will become moot. Hell, I would expect the formation of the USW (United Sex Workers) Union at some point.
True morality involves looking at the big picture, getting past one's own attitudes and doing what is right, not what feels right. Contrary to popular belief, those two are frequently in opposition. Don't think like some religious leaders who feel that dispensing condoms to teenagers is wrong because it "sends the wrong message." Sorry Reverend, those kids couldn't care less about your message, but if you give them proper advice and the right tools they may manage to survive to adulthood and become productive members of society.
I am genuinely puzzled by the quantity of people who view sex as a sneaky goal rather than an incidental enjoyment of a relationship, and then use this pathological viewpoint to argue, "At least paying for a prostitute is honest!"
Well, if one is not capable of an actual relationship, then a hooker is probably the next best thing. Not every man has the same attitudes towards the opposite sex. Frankly, I'd just as soon that sociopaths like that get their jollies from the local state-regulated brothel. Reduces the competition for the rest of us.
She's a friend of a friend, and comes over every night around 12:30 (well, AM...). Hell, she's asleep in my bed right now, poor soul! I'm on Slashdot (afterglow?)!
If she wants to set up a payment system I might not be averse...
Like most such "sins", if you remove the pseudo-morality involved, the current governmental stance against it doesn't hold up. If you permit and regulate it (like any of the other common vices in this country), I believe that many of the associated problems will disappear, not to mention that you'll increase your tax revenue if all those high-class girls start declaring their currently illicit income.
The Prohibition Effect is very real, and invariably occurs when there is a tremendous demand and significant law-enforcement resources are devoted to restricting the supply. As other posters have pointed out, there are few absolute moral or ethical constraints here: much of it is simply cultural, what is considered acceptable by decades or centuries of tradition... and what is not. Sexual repression has been a tradition in the United States since its inception, and I look at the anti-prostitution crowd as being a fading reflection of that.
Yes, I understand that prostitution can have negative consequences for those who engage in it, both for the customer and the supplier, and we'd probably be better off as a society if there were no hookers (probably, I'm not going to make an absolute statement there.) But so do many behaviors that people engage in, many of which are perfect legal. In the end forcing prostitution underground simply because some people find it offensive does everyone a disservice.
... tracking you too. And that with Google Analytics. What a bunch of hypocrits.
Yes. And the fact that they decided to pick on Google which, in spite of it's power has behaved in a generally ethical manner (especially considering how the rest of corporate America is operating with regards to privacy) is kinda silly. Furthermore, if they really want to make a difference, get Congress to go after the likes of Lexis-Nexis, Choicepoint and others. Those are the outfits that I worry about, privacy-wise.
Did you have any problems with overscan with the Radeon? I have a 60" Mitsubishi DLP and the Zotac MAG that I tried out with the nVidia ION overscanned by 3%, and by manually tweaking the resolution it insisted on leaving a black bar about 1" wide on the right side of the screen. It was either that, or I couldn't see the taskbar.
Nope, but whether that was due to the video card or the Samsung TV I couldn't say... but it zocked in with perfect framing. No bands, no bars.
The newer AMD//ATI based boards with integrated graphics work great for this... Would consider MiniITX as well.
Well, be careful. The motherboard I bought had an Intel shared-memory chip on it, and the thing frankly just could not keep up at 1920x1080. The ATI card had no problems whatsoever.
One analyst says, 'People see [Dell] as box-pushers'.
Those of us who have been engineers for a while are disheartened to see Hewlett-Packard in the same light.. Dell has always been Dell, but HP was once truly a company worthy of respect.
Is this really a shocking surprise? I don't mean to troll, but flash has brought us a lot of positives, but it runs so - so just about everywhere in my experiences.
My guess is because home theater is near and dear to Slashdotters hearts, and the editors know it will generate lots of discussion. Besides, I like to read about other people's experiences: sometimes I learn something new.
Troll is too long to read, people won't bite to troll.
He's posting A.C. but I think I know that guy. He was always referring to Apple as "Abble".
Not a very good troll anyway. If you're gonna troll, you gotta at least sound reasonable at first glance, even if you're taking a position in low Earth orbit. He sounds like he's foaming at the mouth.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps the ultimate goal of these lawsuits is not to actually recoup losses or find new modes of profit, but rather to kill any system in which commoners are not reliant on some corporation to provide service for them.
The intent of the media cartels is to eliminate any and all technologies which can be used to distribute content outside of cartel-owned channels, regardless of any consequences to individuals or society at large. Period. End of statement. If these bastards could have assassinated the original DoD working group that developed TCP/IP and the principles of packet routing they would have done so in a heartbeat. But that would have required the ability to look further than the end of their own collective nose. Forward thinking is not a specialty of monopolies or cartels.
Honest to God, look at the history of the motion picture industry, especially their take on home video recording. Remember Jack "I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone" Valenti? Maybe you don't, but if not, remember than the VCR eventually resulted in billions of dollars of revenue that would never have been realized if their shortsighted attempts to have it banned in the U.S. had been successful. The music industry is no better: they successfully killed off DAT (a nifty technology) and even managed to get a tax levied on blank media sold in the U.S. You know, to compensate the "artists" for their presumed losses due to (ahem!) "piracy", regardless of whether that media was used to illegally copy anything whatsoever. They then reneged on that deal (.e.g, the Audio Home Recording Act), and started suing people for fun and profit anyway. Fuckers, all of them. Personally, I think law enforcement dollars would be much better spent investigating the largely foreign-owned corporations that comprise the so-called content industry, and protecting citizens from the depredations of their pressure groups than, say, all the grandstanding going on around Google.
I have no respect at all for these people (and I use the term loosely) since most of their problems are due to a sociopathic need to control, and a complete inability to understand that the world is a very different place now that the Internet is here. They could and should be making more money than every before using new technologies and opportunities afforded by the Internet age, just as they made billions by selling VHS tapes. But they can't see that: all they want is to control distribution so they can charge whatever they believe we'll cough up. Competition be damned. I suppose it doesn't hurt that the RIAA proved that racketeering, frivolous lawsuits, perjury, forced settlements, intimidation and destroyed families can be so darn profitable.
Dammit, I did not click Post Anonymously.
how you think morals are formed
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a good starting point. The golden rule has been around longer than pretty much every surviving religion, and can be traced back in written form to Hammurabi's "do unto others as they did to you" Code, though the concept of retribution almost certainly predates even that.
There are other good tests too. "What would happen if everyone did this?" "Does this act require the use of force?" etc.
All sin lines in hurting other people unnecessarily --- Robert A. Heinlein
I'm referring to newer AMD integrated graphics, which are far better than Intel's...
Gotcha. Yes, ATI really invested a lot in media handling, I agree. Hardware MPEG decoding, etc. And yeah, the HDMI output was great, once I figured out where my 100% CPU was going under XP (Microsoft's UAA driver, disabled that and everything worked fine.)
From where I'm sitting, they bought and assimilated Doubleclick. If you want to talk to me about Google and Ethics, I expect a period between them.
Sure, and Double-Click was run by a bunch of bad dudes, and Google sells targeted advertising. Now, that is an organized form of privacy invasion, no argument. My point is that there are far more dangerous organizations out there from a privacy point of view, companies whose sole reason for existence is to sell profiles on every American citizen to anyone that can meet their price (and their low standards of "legitimacy".) Choicepoint got thoroughly fleeced a few years ago by an identity-theft operation that set up several fake front companies, and purchased profiles on a large number of U.S. citizens. Bought them, outright. They also suffered a security breach where thieves simply stole computers from their offices: their security was so poor that they didn't even physically secure our data, they had millions of records stored on regular office machines. Nobody knows if that information was misused, or if the thieves just wanted the hardware, but still. So I'm sorry, you can bitch about Google all you want, but we do get some cool free services in exchange for its data mining. So-called "data aggregators" like Choicepoint offer little benefit to the public, and really shouldn't be allowed. Or, if not disbanded entirely, should be heavily regulated, and severely penalized when they screw up.
Google, for all it's power and potential for abuse, hasn't really done anything anywhere near as damaging as Choicepoint does simply by staying in business. Another poster recently informed me that Choicepoint was, in turn, assimilated by Lexis-Nexis, another huge bastion of ethical behavior. So, if you want to pick on an outfit that is in the business of selling your privacy wholesale, Google really isn't at the top of the list. They're just the highest profile, from the public's point of view, and that's where politicians find it most rewarding to operate. Mounting an effective defense of our privacy from corporate abuse would require them to target companies that few people have even heard about, which is not a good way to get re-elected.
It could get pretty absurd.
Hard to imagine this getting any more absurd than the average RIAA suit, but anything is possible. Especially here in the "land of the free".
It's legal EXTORTION. In the US, they terms are not mutually exclusive. I suspect the same to be true in most places. After all - the US didn't invent the professional lawyer, we just feed ours better than most places.
Some people feed pet sharks too. Doesn't mean you're supposed to let them into the swimming pool.
There are plenty of plastic surgeons, liposuction clinics, and tanning salons who would pay then handsomely to model in some "BEFORE" pictures.
Hey! I resemble that remark.
Put up or shut up. "Look, I don't need to explain myself, I'm an expert and you're a cretin" is below your usual standards. If you are an expert then we lurkers on the thread would like to hear your reasoning, expertly-drawn historical case studies included.
Oh, cut the guy some slack for Chrissakes. You admit he's pretty good, and want to pick on him for one annoyed post. Even the experts get irritated by hecklers now and then.
Odd. I wonder what would happen to my income if it was illegal for my customers to pay for my services.
Well, probably you'd either have to a. find another line of work or b. get a pimp.
Also, many johns and drug buyers are now caught in asset forfeiture nets if they use a car, cell phone, or some other piece of easily seizable property to commit the illegal act. That helps pay for the extra cops and corrections officers.
Yeah, RICO Act stuff. Nasty-ass law, really, it is. And it's being applied to otherwise law-abiding citizens. The Feds have agents combing law-enforcement records looking for "asset forfeiture opportunities." Some years ago a couple who discovered their own son growing a pot plant turned him in to the local cops, basically to teach him a lesson. He got a wrist slap and that was that, or so they thought. A Fed got hold of that information and got everything they owned, house, bank accounts, everything, seized under RICO. That's just wrong. I never followed up on that to see if they ever got any redress, but the whole point of asset forfeiture is to prevent the "accused" (and I use the term loosely here) from having the resources to fight back. I hate to use the term "unAmerican" because it has so many other connotations, but if ever there was such a thing this is it.
The evil part of this is that the local cops are often given a cut of the take (that may sound like I'm calling it graft, but that's about how I feel about it) so they have no incentive to stand up for their own citizens.
Of course, some people mature from their early 20s sex-insanity, realize that sex isn't everything, and then actually love the person they get married to, and have a nice life after that.
True. But it's also true that many don't. They just don't, they'll never have anything resembling a "normal" relationship and probably shouldn't even try. So far as I'm concerned, a thriving, legitimate prostitution industry would keep them happy, and furthermore keep them from competing for those nice women that those of us who did grow up are trying to find.
Stop forcing YOUR morality on others. It's a choice, both by the service provider, and by the customer
IF it's a choice on the part of the sex worker, then I agree. But under the current anti-prostitution regulations we have, it quite frequently isn't. The only way to make sure that women are a. in it for the money because they want to be and b. aren't horribly abused in the process is ... make it legal. Put prostitutes under the labor law umbrella, and hire the requisite bureaucracy to enforce those laws for the hooker's benefit. Then let them organize, form their own unions if they want, and ply their trade free of the general nastiness they have to suffer now.
I'm sort of wondering how this can be insightful. Is it being honest but naive? Is it sarcastic?
If you don't think a pimp can drag an unwilling female around the country and advertise her services on Craigslist that's pretty naive. But then you seem to be a European so naivete, willful ignorance, and overlooking atrocities are par for the course.
Well, I think yoiu're confusing the moderator's stupidity with the poster's intent. Personally, I would've modded him "funny". and not bothered to insult him.
But enjoying physically and psychologically harmful working conditions day after day and believing (correctly or otherwise) that there's no way out is likely more harmful than hearing one lie about how pretty your eyes are.
Well, I'm not really going to argue with you there. However, like smoking, drinking and recreational drugs (same thing, really), gambling or any other vice, the reality is that a certain subset of the population (any population) is going to engage in them. They create the demand, it will never, ever go away, and every society has to decide how to deal with that. We, of all peoples on this planet, should understand that prohibiting that for which there is a significant demand doesn't work. Not with alcohol, not with pot, not with prostitution, and the more you try to use force to drive [insert 'undesirable' behavior here] from your society, the more problems you tend to create.
So, you have to examine why a prostitute would be trapped, would be compelled to remain a hooker. I can tell you why: it's because the hypermoralistic types have prevented that woman from ever having a way out. If prostitution were legal and heavily-regulated as it is in some other countries, that probably wouldn't be the case. It would just be another a new job classification under existing labor laws, and the same protections afforded to every other worker would be available to your local hooker. An entire legion of bureaucrats would have to be hired to enforce those laws. Right now, a prostitute (who may very well not have entered the oldest profession willingly) is squeezed between the hoods that run the operation, and cops who have no particular mandate to help her because she's a criminal. Let more legitimate business interests run the trade ("Remember the HP Lay") and that issue will become moot. Hell, I would expect the formation of the USW (United Sex Workers) Union at some point.
True morality involves looking at the big picture, getting past one's own attitudes and doing what is right, not what feels right. Contrary to popular belief, those two are frequently in opposition. Don't think like some religious leaders who feel that dispensing condoms to teenagers is wrong because it "sends the wrong message." Sorry Reverend, those kids couldn't care less about your message, but if you give them proper advice and the right tools they may manage to survive to adulthood and become productive members of society.
I am genuinely puzzled by the quantity of people who view sex as a sneaky goal rather than an incidental enjoyment of a relationship, and then use this pathological viewpoint to argue, "At least paying for a prostitute is honest!"
Well, if one is not capable of an actual relationship, then a hooker is probably the next best thing. Not every man has the same attitudes towards the opposite sex. Frankly, I'd just as soon that sociopaths like that get their jollies from the local state-regulated brothel. Reduces the competition for the rest of us.
She's a friend of a friend, and comes over every night around 12:30 (well, AM...). Hell, she's asleep in my bed right now, poor soul! I'm on Slashdot (afterglow?)! If she wants to set up a payment system I might not be averse...
Like most such "sins", if you remove the pseudo-morality involved, the current governmental stance against it doesn't hold up. If you permit and regulate it (like any of the other common vices in this country), I believe that many of the associated problems will disappear, not to mention that you'll increase your tax revenue if all those high-class girls start declaring their currently illicit income.
... and what is not. Sexual repression has been a tradition in the United States since its inception, and I look at the anti-prostitution crowd as being a fading reflection of that.
The Prohibition Effect is very real, and invariably occurs when there is a tremendous demand and significant law-enforcement resources are devoted to restricting the supply. As other posters have pointed out, there are few absolute moral or ethical constraints here: much of it is simply cultural, what is considered acceptable by decades or centuries of tradition
Yes, I understand that prostitution can have negative consequences for those who engage in it, both for the customer and the supplier, and we'd probably be better off as a society if there were no hookers (probably, I'm not going to make an absolute statement there.) But so do many behaviors that people engage in, many of which are perfect legal. In the end forcing prostitution underground simply because some people find it offensive does everyone a disservice.
... tracking you too. And that with Google Analytics. What a bunch of hypocrits.
Yes. And the fact that they decided to pick on Google which, in spite of it's power has behaved in a generally ethical manner (especially considering how the rest of corporate America is operating with regards to privacy) is kinda silly. Furthermore, if they really want to make a difference, get Congress to go after the likes of Lexis-Nexis, Choicepoint and others. Those are the outfits that I worry about, privacy-wise.
> Question: my server is running Debian Lenny. Can I run the backend on that?
There is no server only gui-less mythbackend build. There is just a combined frontend/backend build.
Your version of QT might not be up to snuff.
I've had to do Ubuntu upgrades over that sort of thing with my own setup.
Sounds like I'm better off just setting up another machine.
Did you have any problems with overscan with the Radeon? I have a 60" Mitsubishi DLP and the Zotac MAG that I tried out with the nVidia ION overscanned by 3%, and by manually tweaking the resolution it insisted on leaving a black bar about 1" wide on the right side of the screen. It was either that, or I couldn't see the taskbar.
Nope, but whether that was due to the video card or the Samsung TV I couldn't say ... but it zocked in with perfect framing. No bands, no bars.
The newer AMD//ATI based boards with integrated graphics work great for this... Would consider MiniITX as well.
Well, be careful. The motherboard I bought had an Intel shared-memory chip on it, and the thing frankly just could not keep up at 1920x1080. The ATI card had no problems whatsoever.
One analyst says, 'People see [Dell] as box-pushers'.
Those of us who have been engineers for a while are disheartened to see Hewlett-Packard in the same light.. Dell has always been Dell, but HP was once truly a company worthy of respect.
Is this really a shocking surprise? I don't mean to troll, but flash has brought us a lot of positives, but it runs so - so just about everywhere in my experiences.
Are we talking about Flash or Java here?
Yeah yeah, so shoot me.
why the fuck is this question even accepted by /.?
My guess is because home theater is near and dear to Slashdotters hearts, and the editors know it will generate lots of discussion. Besides, I like to read about other people's experiences: sometimes I learn something new.
Troll is too long to read, people won't bite to troll.
He's posting A.C. but I think I know that guy. He was always referring to Apple as "Abble".
Not a very good troll anyway. If you're gonna troll, you gotta at least sound reasonable at first glance, even if you're taking a position in low Earth orbit. He sounds like he's foaming at the mouth.