I don't know what this 'new' 3D standard is, but I can tell how they create good 3D that I've seen (and possibly what they're referring to). Yes you still wear glasses; no they're not the red and blue things. The film is shot by two cameras, several inches apart (about the distance between your eyes) and when redisplayed they alternate frames from each camera. The technical part I don't entirely grasp is that each camera has a different phase or something, and the glasses can block out the image from the wrong camera. This creates the effect instead of a flat image at 56 frames a second (or whatever they use) you see the scene as you would if you were there in 28 frames a second.
The universe is 28 billion light years across. Check. It is 14 billion years old. Check. Heat cannot travel 28 billion light years in 14 billion years. Fine.
Doesn't that just mean it started in the middle, travelling 14 billion light years in all directions, over the course of 14 billion years, for a total end to end distance of 28 billion light years?
If a reviewer is playing a game looking to get out of it something different than the gamer does, then they're doing it wrong.
A good example would be Burnout 3. Though it got good reviews overall; I read one that blasted it for not having a grinding noise when a car touched a sidewall. Frankly, I didnt even notice it didnt make a noise until I read the review. The fact is the reviewer was looking for flaws, while the gamer was looking to have fun. Since I dont play a game to find the flaws in it, I'd much rather hear what the gamer has to say.
Apparently, Microsoft policy is only to release patches for vulnerabilities that are currently being exploited.
What about some of the biggest issues in recent history like blaster or code red? Both were patched by Microsoft well in advance of their outbreak. Irresponsible PC users cause a lot of the major security issues in this connected world; you can't put all the blame on Microsoft.
Also, do you seriously think that the government doesn't have the means to prevent certain information to get published on the Internet? Do you _seriously_ think so, poor naive lads? I mean, come on, one day you publish something and next day you wake up at Guantanamo bay handcuffed to a railing with a bag over your head.
What the hell would make you think the government hauls people off to Guantanamo bay for spouting on a website? Here are some links to (they claim) thousands of anti-bush websites. I don't think there is enough room at Guantanamo.
What internet protocol doesnt have a high percentage of illegal activity? HTTP to get to the warez sites, FTP to download from them, IRC to get them off other jackasses, SMTP to send unsolicited e-mail. P2P "protocols"...
Too many idiots are out here in cyberspace.
Locking up an emergency button defeats the purpose. They'll typically have a plastic cover you need to lift or some other mechanism to make sure it cant be done by accident.
If the person who did it wont own up, they should have it fingerprinted. I mean... how many other people have pressed it? Should be fairly easy.
"I see the new Denon 58xx series receiver has HDMI and DVI switching, but does it actually grab the audio out of the HDMI port? I don't know, but doubt it."
The 5805, and it does. The only bad thing about that piece is that it is massive, and you may need a hand truck to move it around.
"Doesn't anyone in the FCC actually use HDTV or a Tivo and see how restrictive the new technology is becoming?"
Lets try and be fair, don't you think you're jumping the gun a little? I've heard the rumors about blocking or lowering the quality of content on analog connections, but has anyone actually done it? Has anyone announced actual plans to enforce this is any piece of equipment? Maybe I missed the announcement, if I did I apologize. It seems to me people are jumping the gun alittle. Not only that, but they're attacking the HDMI standard without cause. Attack HDCP if the encryption is what bothers you.
Maybe I'm mistaken or just not normal, but my TV never has as many inputs as I have sources. My current setup requires a 24 foot cable run, and the projector has 1 HDMI and 1 DVI. Basically I cant afford not to use a switch of some type.
Not only that but switching a digital signal degrading the picture quality? I challenge anyone to watch something in my theater and tell me there are picture quality issues. Granted, I spend quite a bit more money on these things than the average joe, but then again HDMI is still only used in high end gear.
I like the idea of fewer wires between components, even though at present I use the analog audio channels whenever possible. I'm not trying to defend DRM or whatever else is setting people off in this discussion, just trying to point out that it is NOT being forced by the HDMI standard.
I've been dealing with HDCP compliant DVI connections for months now, this is nothing new with a digital interface.
Does nobody on/. like to tie their video source switching to their audio source switching?
This baffles me. If you have more than one source (DBS, DVD Player, Cable box, video game system, whatever) then routing both audio and video through a receiver makes changing sources that much easier.
Ask and ye shall receive... to keep it on topic this particular one even an HDMI port on it, http://www.auroramultimedia.com/web/?section=produ cts&product=wacinxstream
.. can be protected in such a manner. If they could agree with a standard for your toslink or digital coax they'd have that encrypted too. Fortunately, I believe, they've been around too long at this point.
I run all my audio and video through a receiver, and it would be nice to cut down on the number of wires. There is nothing inherently evil about the HDMI interface.
Slashdot Mirror
3 to 1 it gets a BSOD while on live TV.
"I am Optimus Prime, please insert liquor!"
Well, no, I wish it too. Only for the sake of seeing an LED projector though. I'm tired of replacing high priced lamps.
You can already project pong on a wall fairly easily, just get a copy of pong for the PC and connect a projector.
"You are currently using 3 MB (0%) of your 1429 MB."
I was so close to having to invite myself for another account...
How about the gas station that writes down your license plate information when you purchase gas w/o paying at the pump.
...
Yeah, how about that
Maybe you should get a couple more pieces of tinfoil to cover up your plates.
Star wars aside, well crafted 3D does look exceptional and I would not mind paying an extra buck or two at the theater for the visual improvement.
Of course to sate my bitterness, they'd first have to remove the 4 extra bucks they're already charging me for no good reason at all.
I don't know what this 'new' 3D standard is, but I can tell how they create good 3D that I've seen (and possibly what they're referring to). Yes you still wear glasses; no they're not the red and blue things. The film is shot by two cameras, several inches apart (about the distance between your eyes) and when redisplayed they alternate frames from each camera. The technical part I don't entirely grasp is that each camera has a different phase or something, and the glasses can block out the image from the wrong camera. This creates the effect instead of a flat image at 56 frames a second (or whatever they use) you see the scene as you would if you were there in 28 frames a second.
I think math can solve this one.
The universe is 28 billion light years across. Check. It is 14 billion years old. Check. Heat cannot travel 28 billion light years in 14 billion years. Fine.
Doesn't that just mean it started in the middle, travelling 14 billion light years in all directions, over the course of 14 billion years, for a total end to end distance of 28 billion light years?
I must be missing something.
or you could get a really cheap mouse that isn't sensitive enough to jitter.
But what does a company built around making inexpensive PCs know about HDTVs?
Apparently not much, because at a native resolution of 1024x768, that panel is NOT HD.
If a reviewer is playing a game looking to get out of it something different than the gamer does, then they're doing it wrong.
A good example would be Burnout 3. Though it got good reviews overall; I read one that blasted it for not having a grinding noise when a car touched a sidewall. Frankly, I didnt even notice it didnt make a noise until I read the review. The fact is the reviewer was looking for flaws, while the gamer was looking to have fun. Since I dont play a game to find the flaws in it, I'd much rather hear what the gamer has to say.
Microsoft patched the blaster vulnerability on July 17th, 2003. Link: here
Blaster security bulletin was posted on August 11th, 2003. Link: here
By my calculations, that puts the patch almost four weeks ahead of the worm.
Apparently, Microsoft policy is only to release patches for vulnerabilities that are currently being exploited.
What about some of the biggest issues in recent history like blaster or code red? Both were patched by Microsoft well in advance of their outbreak. Irresponsible PC users cause a lot of the major security issues in this connected world; you can't put all the blame on Microsoft.
it should be.
Also, do you seriously think that the government doesn't have the means to prevent certain information to get published on the Internet? Do you _seriously_ think so, poor naive lads? I mean, come on, one day you publish something and next day you wake up at Guantanamo bay handcuffed to a railing with a bag over your head.
What the hell would make you think the government hauls people off to Guantanamo bay for spouting on a website?
Here are some links to (they claim) thousands of anti-bush websites. I don't think there is enough room at Guantanamo.
What internet protocol doesnt have a high percentage of illegal activity? HTTP to get to the warez sites, FTP to download from them, IRC to get them off other jackasses, SMTP to send unsolicited e-mail. P2P "protocols" ...
Too many idiots are out here in cyberspace.
Locking up an emergency button defeats the purpose. They'll typically have a plastic cover you need to lift or some other mechanism to make sure it cant be done by accident. If the person who did it wont own up, they should have it fingerprinted. I mean... how many other people have pressed it? Should be fairly easy.
High end PC monitors have adopted dual-link DVI connections. This can handle 2048x1536 with bandwidth to spare.
"I see the new Denon 58xx series receiver has HDMI and DVI switching, but does it actually grab the audio out of the HDMI port? I don't know, but doubt it."
The 5805, and it does. The only bad thing about that piece is that it is massive, and you may need a hand truck to move it around.
"Doesn't anyone in the FCC actually use HDTV or a Tivo and see how restrictive the new technology is becoming?"
Lets try and be fair, don't you think you're jumping the gun a little? I've heard the rumors about blocking or lowering the quality of content on analog connections, but has anyone actually done it? Has anyone announced actual plans to enforce this is any piece of equipment? Maybe I missed the announcement, if I did I apologize. It seems to me people are jumping the gun alittle. Not only that, but they're attacking the HDMI standard without cause. Attack HDCP if the encryption is what bothers you.
Maybe I'm mistaken or just not normal, but my TV never has as many inputs as I have sources. My current setup requires a 24 foot cable run, and the projector has 1 HDMI and 1 DVI. Basically I cant afford not to use a switch of some type.
Not only that but switching a digital signal degrading the picture quality? I challenge anyone to watch something in my theater and tell me there are picture quality issues. Granted, I spend quite a bit more money on these things than the average joe, but then again HDMI is still only used in high end gear.
I like the idea of fewer wires between components, even though at present I use the analog audio channels whenever possible. I'm not trying to defend DRM or whatever else is setting people off in this discussion, just trying to point out that it is NOT being forced by the HDMI standard.
I've been dealing with HDCP compliant DVI connections for months now, this is nothing new with a digital interface.
Does nobody on /. like to tie their video source switching to their audio source switching?
This baffles me. If you have more than one source (DBS, DVD Player, Cable box, video game system, whatever) then routing both audio and video through a receiver makes changing sources that much easier.
"The only difference between DVI signal and HDMI signal is that the HDMI signal is encrypted."
This is simply not true. Not only can you use HDMI without encryption, but HDCP encryption can also be used over DVI.
Not at all.
That 20 second rule on replies is killing me.
Ask and ye shall receive ... to keep it on topic this particular one even an HDMI port on it, http://www.auroramultimedia.com/web/?section=produ cts&product=wacinxstream
.. can be protected in such a manner. If they could agree with a standard for your toslink or digital coax they'd have that encrypted too. Fortunately, I believe, they've been around too long at this point. I run all my audio and video through a receiver, and it would be nice to cut down on the number of wires. There is nothing inherently evil about the HDMI interface.