For example, ABC, NBC, PBS, and WB all broadcast at either 480i or 1080i. The FOX affiliate broadcasts at 480i or 720p.
You're right that resolutions are fixed by channel. (E.g., see here). The networks all either chose 720p or 1080i. However, in most areas of the country. ABC is 720p through most of the country, except some areas of Texas. See here
Regardless of the HDTV format being broadcast, all new HDTV receivers can receive both formats. New HDTV televisions will convert any received signal to a format that is compatible with your new display. The 720p format uses progressive scanning, which is just like your computer monitor. Progressive scan offers crystal clear images that virtually eliminates those scanning lines that are visible on most large screen televisions. ABC broadcasts all of its programming using the 720p format except in Dallas, where the ABC station broadcasts in 1080i. Many new flat panel displays use progressive scan
Incorrect. The official Declaration form, has a space for "first inventor" and an additional form for joint inventors. The only thing a first inventor signifies is the name listed first on the patent application. And, as stated before, different companies have different criteria for order of listing inventors.
Where? There is a field for "primary examiner" but there is no other use of the word "primary" on their advanced search page. Other times (for example, Office Actions), the PTO refers to the first named inventor. But, as I said above, the inventor being named first could be listed first for almost any reason (alphabetically, seniority, etc.)
I realize that you can search by inventor. What the article was saying is that you can't perform a search that counts the number of patents held by an inventor, which is true (at least on the PTO website). Because such information is utterly useless to an Examiner or competitor, there's no point in having that capability.
Ther term "great" has multiple definitions. One of them is "of major significance or importance," which is what you mean by the term greatest inventor. Another definition is "larger than others of its kind," which is what the author intended.
There is absolutely no way to determine who is a "primary" inventor and who is a "secondary" inventor. Just because they are listed in a certain order doesn't mean they are listed in order of seniority. They could very well be listed by seniority.
No, it's perfectly understandable. The identity of the person with the most patents is utterly useless for finding prior art. So it's not a search term.
Knowing CSI, I think that they'll devote more time exploring the intricacies involved in the "reverse algorithmic" required to make that 320x200 security camera zoom in 3000x with perfect clarity.
That is what got to me in one particular episode of CSI:Miami. While I know that they can't always clean up video or audio as much as they do, for some reason, I'd been able to suspend my belief. But one particular episode dealt with photography, a hobby of mine. A guy using a zoom lens that couldn't be more than 200 mm, judging by the size of the lens, was taking pictures of someone's front yard. Turns out that he caught a murder in his camera. But the murder was at the next door neighbor's house and was just in a small window in the corner of an 8x10 print. But they magnified it and not only were they able to see the tatoo on the killer's hand! It didn't matter that the camera's exposure was set to portray an outdoor scene--they were somehow able to resolve a something in the darkened house.
What's worse is that they recreated the crime scene. The photographer saw the flash and zoomed in--he was able to see the killer's face. No F'n way that could happen. What's more, the killer could identify the photographer from across the street.
And then, the killer, a rich actor, doesn't hire a lawyer and just goes to the police station with make-up over his tatoo, which the CSI guy wipes off, revealing the guilt.
Uh, no. They almost always have false leads and investigate the wrong person first. For example, the last episode I saw of CSI: NY, they spent well over half the show investigating the wrong guy (the one who was at the poker game.) It was only at the end of the show that they figured out who the real culprit was.
The SCO case is not a software patent case. SCO accused IBM of putting SCO code in Linux, in violation of copyright laws and IBM's license with SCO.
The problem with corporate naming of stadiums
on
Ma Bell is Back
·
· Score: 1
I guess they'll have to rename SBC Park again. The stadium was finished only 5 years ago, and will be on it's third name if they decide to scrap the SBC Park name.
Exactly! If it were Microsoft that decided to copy the contents of every book ever written,/. would be full of posts discussing how easy it would be to hack into the system to actually get the entire contents of the book. But since it was Google that decided to do the copying, no one here thinks there is anything bad about it.
Also what about the chains for football, that is all dog & pony. You're gon'na sit there and tell me that a guy trotting down the field holding a chain is better than GPS? I know the ball placement is more art than science but not measuring distance.
As someone else stated, it's not the chains that are ludicrous backwards technology, it's ball placement. Unfortunately, that is not replaceable by machines yet. Can it measure exactly where the football is? Of course. But you have to know where the ball is when the receiver is down. This isn't hockey or soccer, where knowing exactly where the ball is is almost trivial with technology.
Unlike the copyright act, the patent term has remained constant for quite a while. The term was 17 years from issuance from 1861 to 1995. The term was changed to 20 years from filing date in 1995, but that change had only a small effect on patent terms because patents can take up to 3 years from filing to issuance.
Nice write up. I have no idea how much of it is true, but I think you should point out that ASCAP royalties only go to the songwriters. That's good for most "rock" bands and rappers, because, in general, they write their own lyrics and music. People who just sing other people's songs don't get ASCAP royalites.
What he means is that if PS3 supports BluRay AND can play BluRay movies, you only have to buy a PS3. (Agreed that PS3 has to support DVD also). In comparison, if you buy an XBox 360, you'll have to buy a separate player for HD movies.
- in the windows of cars parked in the sun, powering anti-theft alarms
Cars have huge batteries in them. Alarms draw little power. No need for solar power here. (E.g., lots of cars have alarms now. Where do you think they get power from).
True, but that doesn't address the other two points: 1) Office doesn't crash that often; 2) Office has Auto save on by default (Type AutoRecover in the Help menu for more information.)
You assume that, when he is ripping CDs, he can't do anything else. However, while he is unpacking the rest of his belongings, cooking dinner, etc., all he needs to do is go to his computer and pop a new one in there periodically.
Spindles are incredibly inefficient because you can't get to individual CDs easily. He says he has "countless" CDs and 400 DVDs. Since he bothered to count the DVDs, but the CDs are too many too count, let's assume he has at least 800 CDs. That's 8 100 CD spindles (or 16 50 CD spindles). If he has a sudden urge to listen to a particular artist, he has to look through as many as 8 spindles to find the CD he wants.
In comparison, if he rips/encodes it, all he needs to do is type in the appropriate name in the search box.
So while encoding CDs may not be much of a space saver, it is a great time saver. Moreover, even if the actual space saved is minimal, it reduces a lot of clutter. I had my CDs stored in a couple of drawers. It didn't take up much room, so encoding my collection didn't free up space. But ease of use has skyrocketed.
but my rule of thumb is that 80% of the average digital music library is stuff the owner wouldn't want to listen to anyways. 95% for me, but I'm the shameless packrat who kept all those SXSW tracks around "just to be safe".
I have genres that I haven't listened to in months. But that doesn't mean I'll never listen to them again. For example, I loved prog rock in the early 90s and got a bunch of prog albums. I grew tired of them and didn't listen to them for a few years. All of a sudden, I had a huge urge to listen to prog again. There they are on my hard drive, ready to be listened to. No digging through 8 spindles to find the particular CD I want.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right that resolutions are fixed by channel. (E.g., see here). The networks all either chose 720p or 1080i. However, in most areas of the country. ABC is 720p through most of the country, except some areas of Texas. See here
Incorrect. The official Declaration form, has a space for "first inventor" and an additional form for joint inventors. The only thing a first inventor signifies is the name listed first on the patent application. And, as stated before, different companies have different criteria for order of listing inventors.
Where? There is a field for "primary examiner" but there is no other use of the word "primary" on their advanced search page. Other times (for example, Office Actions), the PTO refers to the first named inventor. But, as I said above, the inventor being named first could be listed first for almost any reason (alphabetically, seniority, etc.)
I realize that you can search by inventor. What the article was saying is that you can't perform a search that counts the number of patents held by an inventor, which is true (at least on the PTO website). Because such information is utterly useless to an Examiner or competitor, there's no point in having that capability.
Ther term "great" has multiple definitions. One of them is "of major significance or importance," which is what you mean by the term greatest inventor. Another definition is "larger than others of its kind," which is what the author intended.
There is absolutely no way to determine who is a "primary" inventor and who is a "secondary" inventor. Just because they are listed in a certain order doesn't mean they are listed in order of seniority. They could very well be listed by seniority.
No, it's perfectly understandable. The identity of the person with the most patents is utterly useless for finding prior art. So it's not a search term.
That is what got to me in one particular episode of CSI:Miami. While I know that they can't always clean up video or audio as much as they do, for some reason, I'd been able to suspend my belief. But one particular episode dealt with photography, a hobby of mine. A guy using a zoom lens that couldn't be more than 200 mm, judging by the size of the lens, was taking pictures of someone's front yard. Turns out that he caught a murder in his camera. But the murder was at the next door neighbor's house and was just in a small window in the corner of an 8x10 print. But they magnified it and not only were they able to see the tatoo on the killer's hand! It didn't matter that the camera's exposure was set to portray an outdoor scene--they were somehow able to resolve a something in the darkened house.
What's worse is that they recreated the crime scene. The photographer saw the flash and zoomed in--he was able to see the killer's face. No F'n way that could happen. What's more, the killer could identify the photographer from across the street.
And then, the killer, a rich actor, doesn't hire a lawyer and just goes to the police station with make-up over his tatoo, which the CSI guy wipes off, revealing the guilt.
Uh, no. They almost always have false leads and investigate the wrong person first. For example, the last episode I saw of CSI: NY, they spent well over half the show investigating the wrong guy (the one who was at the poker game.) It was only at the end of the show that they figured out who the real culprit was.
You also get a rating that increases for each act you commit.
Actually, yes they can. Check out the third video on the video link from this page.
The SCO case is not a software patent case. SCO accused IBM of putting SCO code in Linux, in violation of copyright laws and IBM's license with SCO.
I guess they'll have to rename SBC Park again. The stadium was finished only 5 years ago, and will be on it's third name if they decide to scrap the SBC Park name.
Exactly! If it were Microsoft that decided to copy the contents of every book ever written, /. would be full of posts discussing how easy it would be to hack into the system to actually get the entire contents of the book. But since it was Google that decided to do the copying, no one here thinks there is anything bad about it.
As someone else stated, it's not the chains that are ludicrous backwards technology, it's ball placement. Unfortunately, that is not replaceable by machines yet. Can it measure exactly where the football is? Of course. But you have to know where the ball is when the receiver is down. This isn't hockey or soccer, where knowing exactly where the ball is is almost trivial with technology.
Unlike the copyright act, the patent term has remained constant for quite a while. The term was 17 years from issuance from 1861 to 1995. The term was changed to 20 years from filing date in 1995, but that change had only a small effect on patent terms because patents can take up to 3 years from filing to issuance.
That's where the industry wants it to go. Witness broadcast flags and HDMI.
Nice write up. I have no idea how much of it is true, but I think you should point out that ASCAP royalties only go to the songwriters. That's good for most "rock" bands and rappers, because, in general, they write their own lyrics and music. People who just sing other people's songs don't get ASCAP royalites.
What he means is that if PS3 supports BluRay AND can play BluRay movies, you only have to buy a PS3. (Agreed that PS3 has to support DVD also). In comparison, if you buy an XBox 360, you'll have to buy a separate player for HD movies.
I think the worry is that, since they scan the entire book, someone could hack into the system and download the entire book.
Cars have huge batteries in them. Alarms draw little power. No need for solar power here. (E.g., lots of cars have alarms now. Where do you think they get power from).
True, but that doesn't address the other two points: 1) Office doesn't crash that often; 2) Office has Auto save on by default (Type AutoRecover in the Help menu for more information.)
As for professionally typeset books, books on 8.5" paper are rare.
Spindles are incredibly inefficient because you can't get to individual CDs easily. He says he has "countless" CDs and 400 DVDs. Since he bothered to count the DVDs, but the CDs are too many too count, let's assume he has at least 800 CDs. That's 8 100 CD spindles (or 16 50 CD spindles). If he has a sudden urge to listen to a particular artist, he has to look through as many as 8 spindles to find the CD he wants.
In comparison, if he rips/encodes it, all he needs to do is type in the appropriate name in the search box.
So while encoding CDs may not be much of a space saver, it is a great time saver. Moreover, even if the actual space saved is minimal, it reduces a lot of clutter. I had my CDs stored in a couple of drawers. It didn't take up much room, so encoding my collection didn't free up space. But ease of use has skyrocketed.
but my rule of thumb is that 80% of the average digital music library is stuff the owner wouldn't want to listen to anyways. 95% for me, but I'm the shameless packrat who kept all those SXSW tracks around "just to be safe".
I have genres that I haven't listened to in months. But that doesn't mean I'll never listen to them again. For example, I loved prog rock in the early 90s and got a bunch of prog albums. I grew tired of them and didn't listen to them for a few years. All of a sudden, I had a huge urge to listen to prog again. There they are on my hard drive, ready to be listened to. No digging through 8 spindles to find the particular CD I want.