I'm not confusing anything. Upscaling means changing the dimensions of an image alone. Deinterlacing is required before displaying an image on a progressive scan display like a plasma or LCD. Deinterlacing is conversion, not scaling.
If a television with a native 1080p display gets anything other than 1080p, it must convert. With a DVD, that means 480i. This is not scaling.
They've done multi-disc releases before (VII, VIII, XI). I don't think they'll have any issues doing it again.
I think by virtue of them achieving an identical experience on both consoles you subject yourself to some technical compromise. It's not going to squeeze every last drop of processing power out of either system.
Still, if they're developing on a layer that runs on both platforms, it bodes well for consistency. And honestly, I'm not worried about it looking substandard on either console.
MGS4 looked amazing, but with a story like theirs, what does it matter anyway? The game turned out to be more of the same "blah blah" Koijima nonsense that newcomers to the series couldn't possibly fathom (and even kept the veterans scratching their heads). Final Fantasy's reboot per game keeps people coming back. Thirteen times, to approximate;)
The PS3 also will upconvert your old DVD's to 1080p. So, your library of DVD's isn't obsolete like VHS tapes were with DVD's. It'll make all your DVD's look better.
If you have a native 1080p television, like an LCD or plasma, it already upconverts any acceptable signals to 1080p so it can display it at all. At some point, it has to achieve a 1:1 pixel mapping for the physical display. If you plug your DVD player into your 1080p display, congratulations, your DVD is playing upconverted. You could do the same with your VCR. It'll still look like ass, but it'll be 1080p ass.
Upconverting doesn't improve quality. It makes it look correct for your chosen display.
Perhaps, to simplify, we should amend it to "Booth was," which would take into account all of the things he was to all sides. Or, if we want to get really racy, try "Osama is a hero."
Though it may not come across in text, I'm actually trying to be funny, not an ass;)
I love it when people invoke The Ron Paul with Dr. in front. Is it to make me believe his experience as a gynecologist will help transform America into a utopia?
I understand your analogy, and it would be valid if not for two things.
First, our presence in Iraq creates terrorists. The leaders recruit based on propaganda and circumstance. "Your family has been killed by the United States. We can teach you how to strike back at the infidel." Bam. Now they're placing I.E.D.'s in trash cans and under bodies. It's work that doesn't require bravery or sacrifice, and someone will do it if manipulated properly. Manipulation is what terrorist training is all about. We provide the catalyst, and their membership goes up. It doesn't even have to be local. Our operations in Iraq probably has a positive effect on recruitment for terror worldwide.
The second is this. You make it sound like Iraq has happened in a vacuum, like there have been no other victims than the soldiers and terrorists. There's more. There have been families torn apart by death and a country torn apart by the ravages of war. You rightly point out that they're being asked to survive as a democracy in a region where that's completely implausible. We should have known that before doing what we did, and now we may have doomed the Iraqis to generations of anguish, worse even than they suffered under Saddam Hussein.
According to your source, Al-Qaeda in Iraq's goal is "Conduct jihad against U.S. and allied forces in Iraq; oppose Jordan."
So, basically, we have Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who had nothing to do with the attacks on the World Trade Center, Pentagon or United 93, and two of his spiritual advisers killed and an entire hierarchy who exist just to fuck with us because we invaded Iraq.
In short, our invasion of Iraq gave them purpose.
Look at the dossiers of the leadership of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. These are not the people that attacked us. They're fuckers, I agree. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has a death sentence waiting for him in Jordan for trying to overthrow the monarchy. These guys are killing our troops in Iraq, so fuck 'em. But if we'd focused on our mission in Afghanistan and looked more closely at Pakistan, these guys wouldn't have been a problem for us.
The only connection between Al-Qaeda and Iraq seems to be that there are Al-Qaeda cells in Iraq. That's true of probably every country in the region. We can't invade all of them, nor should we.
Invading Iraq to stem the influence of Al-Qaeda is a flawed strategic decision that Donald Rumsfeld and George W. Bush used, but it's now so painfully clear that it's wrong. If our goal was to punish Al-Qaeda for killing Americans on American soil, we should have kept the fight focused at Bin Laden's front door; Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Yep, I'd say your link unequivocally shows the lack of justification for linking Al-Qaeda to Iraq. Here's the list of locations of kill/capture from your link:
Pakistan Iraq Philipines Iraq Pakistan Pakistan Saudi Arabia Thailand Pakistan Pakistan United Arab Emirates Yemen Georgia Pakistan Pakistan Afghanistan Germany
Notice a pattern? I see two. Pakistan and not Iraq.
Sealed consumer device? I'll bet you five seconds on google shows you how to do it, start to finish. Stop whining. Do it yourself. It's not impossible.
For me to know what people find uncivilized, I would have to ask them for a list before I started talking to them. The only solution to this is to have civility defined in a rulebook.
Out of curiosity, what sort of solution would you advocate? I understand that you consider foul language uncivilized and denigrating, but surely you understand that not all people agree with your point of view. In such a case, civility is not civility, but a personally held ideal which is not universal.
Is the call to enumerate and then legislate American "civility?"
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not confusing anything. Upscaling means changing the dimensions of an image alone. Deinterlacing is required before displaying an image on a progressive scan display like a plasma or LCD. Deinterlacing is conversion, not scaling.
If a television with a native 1080p display gets anything other than 1080p, it must convert. With a DVD, that means 480i. This is not scaling.
FTW.
My hope would be that they make it even prettier than Oblivion ;)
I forget. What does "casual gamer" mean this week? ;)
They've done multi-disc releases before (VII, VIII, XI). I don't think they'll have any issues doing it again.
I think by virtue of them achieving an identical experience on both consoles you subject yourself to some technical compromise. It's not going to squeeze every last drop of processing power out of either system.
Still, if they're developing on a layer that runs on both platforms, it bodes well for consistency. And honestly, I'm not worried about it looking substandard on either console.
MGS4 looked amazing, but with a story like theirs, what does it matter anyway? The game turned out to be more of the same "blah blah" Koijima nonsense that newcomers to the series couldn't possibly fathom (and even kept the veterans scratching their heads). Final Fantasy's reboot per game keeps people coming back. Thirteen times, to approximate ;)
The PS3 also will upconvert your old DVD's to 1080p. So, your library of DVD's isn't obsolete like VHS tapes were with DVD's. It'll make all your DVD's look better.
If you have a native 1080p television, like an LCD or plasma, it already upconverts any acceptable signals to 1080p so it can display it at all. At some point, it has to achieve a 1:1 pixel mapping for the physical display. If you plug your DVD player into your 1080p display, congratulations, your DVD is playing upconverted. You could do the same with your VCR. It'll still look like ass, but it'll be 1080p ass.
Upconverting doesn't improve quality. It makes it look correct for your chosen display.
Which, amazingly, includes this thing called "phone service."
If that's the case, maybe what we really need is a proctologist...
Perhaps, to simplify, we should amend it to "Booth was," which would take into account all of the things he was to all sides. Or, if we want to get really racy, try "Osama is a hero."
Though it may not come across in text, I'm actually trying to be funny, not an ass ;)
I love it when people invoke The Ron Paul with Dr. in front. Is it to make me believe his experience as a gynecologist will help transform America into a utopia?
Booth was a patriot
Yes, of the Confederate States of America.
Yeah. Zero progress in over 200 years. Political parties are going to destroy America. Any day now.
That seems backwards. An english version of google is en.google. More specific on the left, less specific on the right?
If there's a Google TLD, wouldn't you just type "google"?
Well I have nipples, mrsteveman1. Could you sue me?
I understand your analogy, and it would be valid if not for two things.
First, our presence in Iraq creates terrorists. The leaders recruit based on propaganda and circumstance. "Your family has been killed by the United States. We can teach you how to strike back at the infidel." Bam. Now they're placing I.E.D.'s in trash cans and under bodies. It's work that doesn't require bravery or sacrifice, and someone will do it if manipulated properly. Manipulation is what terrorist training is all about. We provide the catalyst, and their membership goes up. It doesn't even have to be local. Our operations in Iraq probably has a positive effect on recruitment for terror worldwide.
The second is this. You make it sound like Iraq has happened in a vacuum, like there have been no other victims than the soldiers and terrorists. There's more. There have been families torn apart by death and a country torn apart by the ravages of war. You rightly point out that they're being asked to survive as a democracy in a region where that's completely implausible. We should have known that before doing what we did, and now we may have doomed the Iraqis to generations of anguish, worse even than they suffered under Saddam Hussein.
Well, I don't agree.
According to your source, Al-Qaeda in Iraq's goal is "Conduct jihad against U.S. and allied forces in Iraq; oppose Jordan."
So, basically, we have Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who had nothing to do with the attacks on the World Trade Center, Pentagon or United 93, and two of his spiritual advisers killed and an entire hierarchy who exist just to fuck with us because we invaded Iraq.
In short, our invasion of Iraq gave them purpose.
Look at the dossiers of the leadership of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. These are not the people that attacked us. They're fuckers, I agree. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has a death sentence waiting for him in Jordan for trying to overthrow the monarchy. These guys are killing our troops in Iraq, so fuck 'em. But if we'd focused on our mission in Afghanistan and looked more closely at Pakistan, these guys wouldn't have been a problem for us.
The only connection between Al-Qaeda and Iraq seems to be that there are Al-Qaeda cells in Iraq. That's true of probably every country in the region. We can't invade all of them, nor should we.
Invading Iraq to stem the influence of Al-Qaeda is a flawed strategic decision that Donald Rumsfeld and George W. Bush used, but it's now so painfully clear that it's wrong. If our goal was to punish Al-Qaeda for killing Americans on American soil, we should have kept the fight focused at Bin Laden's front door; Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Yep, I'd say your link unequivocally shows the lack of justification for linking Al-Qaeda to Iraq. Here's the list of locations of kill/capture from your link:
Pakistan
Iraq
Philipines
Iraq
Pakistan
Pakistan
Saudi Arabia
Thailand
Pakistan
Pakistan
United Arab Emirates
Yemen
Georgia
Pakistan
Pakistan
Afghanistan
Germany
Notice a pattern? I see two. Pakistan and not Iraq.
You must not know a whole lot of Cocoa developers.
Said the man who can't even elect his own Prime Minister.
My metric; mom loved XP when she got it. She despises Vista.
Sealed consumer device? I'll bet you five seconds on google shows you how to do it, start to finish. Stop whining. Do it yourself. It's not impossible.
Well, your philosophy is your own. I wish you the best of luck with the noise. I was looking for a more committal answer, though.
For me to know what people find uncivilized, I would have to ask them for a list before I started talking to them. The only solution to this is to have civility defined in a rulebook.
Out of curiosity, what sort of solution would you advocate? I understand that you consider foul language uncivilized and denigrating, but surely you understand that not all people agree with your point of view. In such a case, civility is not civility, but a personally held ideal which is not universal.
Is the call to enumerate and then legislate American "civility?"