Pure uninterupted 360 degree view. (Well I believe it's blocked right behind you.)
No, you can "check six" by looking behind you. Often, however, all projectors aren't on at one (to reduce the effort of the video-cards). Instead the pilot is wearing a head tracker (built into the flight-helmet), which toggles off the projectors he can't see.
Therefore to an observer watching the trainee, it may look like there is no view to the rear.
Why is it that the loop and hook was apparently the right place to stop technologically for an Amish person, but buttons and door knobs are RIGHT OUT!??
Did you stop him and ask if he was Amish? Probably you didn't- but if you had, the answer would probably be "no".
Plenty of non-Amish live in "Amish Country". Mennonites especially, who resemble the Amish superficially but employ modern power supplies. Mennoities are required to ride only black vehicles.
I don't know where on God's green earth you got that from, but you couldn't be more wrong.
Nope. He's right, and you're wrong. And by tossing in that gratutious "you can't be more wrong", you made YOURSELF even more wrong.
As others have replied, your supposed "proof" is based on confusing libel with satire. For the real state-of-the-law, read "The Cat Not In The Hat" decision. It clearly shows that imitating the work of an artist (Theodor Geisel) to comment on someone else (Orenthal Simpson) is NOT protected parody, but illegal copyright infringement.
In fact, when the satire is aimed at a public official
Comments like that underline your fundamental misunderstanding of the issue. The subject of the satire doesn't matter- it's not his rights that are being violated. It's the author of the source material that is allegedly harmed by the infringement. (Notice that it wasn't Bush or Kerry suing Jibjab, but Ms. Guthrie)
The $CLASSPATH is not that freakin' hard. It's just the #1 n00b question because n00bs don't understand what a path is.
That'd be fine if CLASSPATH were only a developer concern- but it's not. The end-user must understand how to setup CLASSPATH to run Java apps. That necessity weakens the cross-platform promise of Java.
Look at any major desktop application written in Java- they all come in platform specific forms with a BAT file, shell script, or whatever, just to setup the CLASSPATH.
They could, actually... if they really wanted to. Step 1 is to start arresting drivers who are travelling at 56 or 66 mph, and fine them $1000 on the first offence.
Poof! Nobody will speed anymore. They'll hardly dare pass 51mph.
It's about the motivations of the police. Cops today try to both prevent dangerous driving, and earn money. Targeting the fastest drivers does both. But if their goal was to enforce the speed limit (which is DIFFERENT from enforcing safety), then they'd be targeting the slowest speeders.
The cops are too sane to bother enforcing the 55mph limit, which is why the law persists.
Wrong. The MiG15 you describe below was superior to US fighters at the time of it's creation.
Their jet fighters were incapable of some maneuvers that the World War II P-51 could perform easily.
The Space Shuttle can't roll like a P-51 either; doesn't mean it "sucks".
The MiG-15's main opponent was the US F-86, and given equally skilled pilots, the MiG would NEVER lose. It had superior mobility, so the choice of whether to disengage or continue fighting was up to him. Fortunately for the USA, most Korean MiG pilots were dangerously untrained. (That's Chuck Yeager's opinion I'm repeating)
Later MiGs were in several ways superior to USA equivalents too. The US fighters usually had an advantage in radars, missiles, or avionics; but that's not really the plane's fault, is it?
Many, many users are much happier with DVD-level quality, and of course HD is higher quality still.
DVDs won on resolution, flexible features, physical size, and durability. You can't use their success as proof that resolution is important to consumers.
The main reason for DVD's higher effective quality is not resolution, but durability. Rental VHS quickly acquires graininess over a few months of viewing. (Say, DVD quality = 150, VHS quality is anywhere from 10-100... you never know what you're going to get).
We have a disagreement as to whether or not HD resolution is really enough of a benefit for consumers to care. Historical comparisons can't prove it either way (B&W TV was "good enough" for a long time, but color took off fast), but recent ancedotes support my position.
You mentioned that DVD was the fastest-adopted consumer electronics ever... but then, what's the slowest? HDTV may be a good contender (second only to the videophone??)
Sales are low because of little content.
No, sales are low because that content has minimal differentiation from traditional TV.
Very little television has production values such that the added HD resolution would make the viewing experience perceptibly more enjoyable. But Hollywood films do- yet, there is no plan on the horizon to roll out a "HD DVD" media to get high-resolution movies into the video rental market.
HDTV sellers are currently focusing on the sports-fan market, because those viewers are least bothered by inability to time-shift (no HD VCR or TD PVR) or rent (no HD DVD). USA consumers can hardly imagine installing a TV without 2 or 3 of those obligatory accessories. A game console outputing HD signals would be a help too (HD XBox).
A. He wanted combat service and medals to further his future political career
False. That theory is an anachronism. At the time Kerry volunteered for swift-boats, they were a non-combat position. It was only after he had been transferred that they were moved from patrolling the (safe) deep ocean, to hazardous "brown water" missions on Vietnam's rivers. He didn't actually volunteer for combat- but like a good soldier, he went when ordered.
everyone else on the boat took the same risk, the guy fell off Kerry's boat, it was Kerry's duty to pick him up.
False. Jim Rassman had never been in Kerry's boat before. He fell from a different vessel.
Its just really a little disturbing someone could rack up 3 purple hearts and spend no appreciable time in the hospital.
Battle is fickle. I've seen one man with 7 Purple Hearts who was never out of action for even a day... and you've probably seen a certain other veteran on TV who got no Purple Heart, even though he was maimed and hospitalized for years.
What a monumentally stupid thing to do! And you guys wonder why Al Qaeda became such a problem?
Carter's support of the Taleban was irrelevant to Al Qaeda. (Notice that they are two DIFFERENT groups).
Al Qaeda became a problem because of George Bush's ill-considered Gulf War on Iraq. If he'd either left Iraq alone, or fully invaded them and deposed Hussein, then Al Qaeda wouldn't have been a problem to the USA.
Instead, he attacked Iraq, then pulled back and left 10,000 US soldiers sitting there in Saudi Arabia, and that's what caused the problem.
Just remember, Chevrolet released the original "Nova" back in the 70's.. in Mexico.
Just remember, Pemex release the original "Nova" (gasoline) back in the 60's... in Mexico.
And hey, they're still selling it today. In fact, Chevy had no problem with their Novas either.
Re:Know your government.
on
Semper WiFi
·
· Score: 1
who call themselves "Evangelical Christians", about 45% of the people, want to kill all the Jews.
No they don't. They want the Jews to rule Jerusalem until the End Times so that their Temple can be smitten by the Beast...
Their most important goal is to see that Biblical Accuracy is maintained. And that means that if the world doesn't match what Revelations predicts, then geographical borders must be redrawn to match! Evangelicals absolutely don't want to see the Jews exterminated... unless it's by the divine sword of God, that is.
The current method, trying to slap DRM on anything you buy, has proven ineffective and is starting to piss off a fair number of consumers, so is pretty pointless.
Wrong. Don't you dare claim a new invention is "proven ineffective" just because all the attempts so far have failed. Just think back to the technological improvements of the 20th century if you need help with the idea.
If the government cares about it enough, DRM can work. No product yet sold has come close to implementing the true technical+legal potential of DRM. Once Microsoft releases a version of Windows with Trusted Computing to run only on DRMed motherboards, then we'll have a test case to see if DRM is actually "proven ineffective".
So, flood the marketing channels, and make it so easy to buy his work that its not worth the trouble to make one for yourself.
I'm hopeful that this will one day happen- there certainly isn't any true technical or legal barrier to it today. Once it's quick, convenient, and inexpensive to download officially-purchased media, the social stigma of being known as a cheapskate will be enough to shutdown 95% of p2p infringers.
The only reason it hasn't happened already is greed+sloth on the part of the publishing companies. They're going to sit back and hope that the government stops infringement for them, before going through the effort to create their own system to make p2p "piracy" undesirable.
Nah. It's because going to the store and plunking down a few bucks is better than downloading it over a period of several days. Plus I like commentaries etc.
Those points are almost obselete already, and will be irrelevant in the long term.
"Pirates" encoders can include the commentary tracks with their releases, if there's any demand for it. Storing secondary audio tracks is SIMPLE.
And a normal USA broadband user can recieve 700 meg in under 3 hours. Worst case would be taking 12 hours overnight.
recompressed with Divx or Xvid or some similar format, I wonder what people he's been talking to...
Reading comprehension time. He didn't ask "Did anyone download a video made from a HD source?". It was "Anyone download a video that was STILL HD when you got it?".
Obviously, the answer to the 2nd question was "no", because 10+ gigabyte downloads just aren't worth it.
There aren't just two groups in consideration here- there's at least 3.
Wants high resolution, and is willing to pay for it
Wants high resolution, and is patient enough to wait for the download
Satisfied with low resolution, and happy to download rapidly
Satisified with low resolution, but not skilled enough at internet-searching to start a download
So really, what do you think the relative populations of those groups be? I'm pretty sure that 3 & 4 will dwarf 1 & 2, for reasons to follow.
You might say bandwidth is catching up fast, but Cuban has a lot of room to increase quality.
No he doesn't. You're talking about only technical quality (which should accurately be called resolution)- but for the economic question of how to encourage buyers over bootleggers, we need to discuss artistic quality.
That is, does the movie's imagery actually look good enough to actually deserve using the higher resolution to encode it? In my experience, that hardly ever happens. It's a rare film that needs more than 800x600 to do it justice. Increasing cinematic standards to consistently produce works that NEED HD resolution for completely appreciation would be prohibitively expensive.
Mark has pointed to the fact that quality is what the end-user hungers
Wrong. Many, many end users are quite happy with VHS-level quality, which needs only the trim filesize of 30 meg/minute. There are even people who risk arrest to sneak videocameras into theaters, which produces an obviously absymal quality. The fact that they even bother proves that there exists demand for low-quality content.
He even pointed to the fact that when asked most people have never downloaded a video.
Wrong. he never said that. What he said was
I ask if anyone in the room has ever downloaded or uploaded a movie or TV show in HD quality to or from a P2P network. No one has ever raised their hand.
That means nobody had downloaded High Definition content- not that they'd never downloaded a movie at all. Even today's DVD movies, at 3-10+ gigabytes, are too much for the average broadband user. But recompressed to a handy 700 meg by encoders like "divx", and the files become completely managable to send over Kazaa, Grokster, or bit torrent.
Go rip a DVD and watch it at 320 x 240 with a grainy picture
If the DVD were standard television fare like Seinfeld or The Simpsons, even that quality would be tolerable. Many TV programs don't even have enough visual richness to justify DVD quality, not to mention HDTV (shows produced cinema-style, like HBO's originals, are of course exceptions).
But anyhow, pointing at the shortcomings of 320x240 is attacking a strawman. 320x240 needs only 3 meg/minute. 640x480, on the other hand, looks marginally acceptable at 3meg/min and completely fine at twice that.
I want to watch a uncompressed HD format with crystal clear clarity.
Your position is a minority. The HDTV industry is struggling to create consumer demand for what is, after all, a minor improvement to the TV watching experience.
Compare against the popularity of MP3 trading on Napster. The quality was far below CD audio, but the P2P users didn't seem to care!
Filesize is not enough to stop copyright infringement.
I'm only guided by the first 10 amendments, and the constitution proper.
Let's check what the "constitution proper" has to say about this:
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
I only honor the base documents, not any extensions..
That's impossible. You'll need a heavy-duty 'rationalization' for such an inconsistent position.
Take a look inside the "base documents" at Article 5:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution
Honoring the base document means honoring Article 5, which means honoring the extensions...
Computer control could increase this capacity but not infinitely
Yes, but "no more gridlock" doesn't imply "infinite road capacity".
A computer system can totally eliminate gridlock by simply not allowing cars to start a trip if the road capacity would be exceeded. True, you still experience a delay in reaching your destination- but the waiting is accomplished in the comfort of your own home, not cramped in a vehicle.
(Furthermore, someone in a big hurry could probably "bid" $2000 into the computer system to buy priority from other drivers...)
Slashdot Mirror
Pure uninterupted 360 degree view. (Well I believe it's blocked right behind you.)
No, you can "check six" by looking behind you. Often, however, all projectors aren't on at one (to reduce the effort of the video-cards). Instead the pilot is wearing a head tracker (built into the flight-helmet), which toggles off the projectors he can't see.
Therefore to an observer watching the trainee, it may look like there is no view to the rear.
Microsoft has been pushing for Internet integration since at least Windows 95. Why else would they make the file manager a web browser?
Your history is a little off. Windows 95 didn't include any form of Web Browser. Win98 is when they added IE into the pre-existing explorer.exe.
Why is it that the loop and hook was apparently the right place to stop technologically for an Amish person, but buttons and door knobs are RIGHT OUT!??
Did you stop him and ask if he was Amish? Probably you didn't- but if you had, the answer would probably be "no".
Plenty of non-Amish live in "Amish Country". Mennonites especially, who resemble the Amish superficially but employ modern power supplies. Mennoities are required to ride only black vehicles.
Primitive implies uneducated.
No it doesn't. However, the Amish ARE uneducated... learning stops at 8th grade.
True, many members of mainstream society never effectively advance beyond (or even reach) that level- but then, many go much further.
I don't know where on God's green earth you got that from, but you couldn't be more wrong.
Nope. He's right, and you're wrong. And by tossing in that gratutious "you can't be more wrong", you made YOURSELF even more wrong.
As others have replied, your supposed "proof" is based on confusing libel with satire. For the real state-of-the-law, read "The Cat Not In The Hat" decision. It clearly shows that imitating the work of an artist (Theodor Geisel) to comment on someone else (Orenthal Simpson) is NOT protected parody, but illegal copyright infringement.
In fact, when the satire is aimed at a public official
Comments like that underline your fundamental misunderstanding of the issue. The subject of the satire doesn't matter- it's not his rights that are being violated. It's the author of the source material that is allegedly harmed by the infringement. (Notice that it wasn't Bush or Kerry suing Jibjab, but Ms. Guthrie)
The $CLASSPATH is not that freakin' hard. It's just the #1 n00b question because n00bs don't understand what a path is.
That'd be fine if CLASSPATH were only a developer concern- but it's not. The end-user must understand how to setup CLASSPATH to run Java apps. That necessity weakens the cross-platform promise of Java.
Look at any major desktop application written in Java- they all come in platform specific forms with a BAT file, shell script, or whatever, just to setup the CLASSPATH.
The police cannot seriously enforce this limit
They could, actually... if they really wanted to. Step 1 is to start arresting drivers who are travelling at 56 or 66 mph, and fine them $1000 on the first offence.
Poof! Nobody will speed anymore. They'll hardly dare pass 51mph.
It's about the motivations of the police. Cops today try to both prevent dangerous driving, and earn money. Targeting the fastest drivers does both. But if their goal was to enforce the speed limit (which is DIFFERENT from enforcing safety), then they'd be targeting the slowest speeders.
The cops are too sane to bother enforcing the 55mph limit, which is why the law persists.
And the planes sucked.
Wrong. The MiG15 you describe below was superior to US fighters at the time of it's creation.
Their jet fighters were incapable of some maneuvers that the World War II P-51 could perform easily.
The Space Shuttle can't roll like a P-51 either; doesn't mean it "sucks".
The MiG-15's main opponent was the US F-86, and given equally skilled pilots, the MiG would NEVER lose. It had superior mobility, so the choice of whether to disengage or continue fighting was up to him. Fortunately for the USA, most Korean MiG pilots were dangerously untrained. (That's Chuck Yeager's opinion I'm repeating)
Later MiGs were in several ways superior to USA equivalents too. The US fighters usually had an advantage in radars, missiles, or avionics; but that's not really the plane's fault, is it?
Many, many users are much happier with DVD-level quality, and of course HD is higher quality still.
DVDs won on resolution, flexible features, physical size, and durability. You can't use their success as proof that resolution is important to consumers.
The main reason for DVD's higher effective quality is not resolution, but durability. Rental VHS quickly acquires graininess over a few months of viewing. (Say, DVD quality = 150, VHS quality is anywhere from 10-100... you never know what you're going to get).
We have a disagreement as to whether or not HD resolution is really enough of a benefit for consumers to care. Historical comparisons can't prove it either way (B&W TV was "good enough" for a long time, but color took off fast), but recent ancedotes support my position.
You mentioned that DVD was the fastest-adopted consumer electronics ever... but then, what's the slowest? HDTV may be a good contender (second only to the videophone??)
Sales are low because of little content.
No, sales are low because that content has minimal differentiation from traditional TV.
Very little television has production values such that the added HD resolution would make the viewing experience perceptibly more enjoyable. But Hollywood films do- yet, there is no plan on the horizon to roll out a "HD DVD" media to get high-resolution movies into the video rental market.
HDTV sellers are currently focusing on the sports-fan market, because those viewers are least bothered by inability to time-shift (no HD VCR or TD PVR) or rent (no HD DVD). USA consumers can hardly imagine installing a TV without 2 or 3 of those obligatory accessories. A game console outputing HD signals would be a help too (HD XBox).
A. He wanted combat service and medals to further his future political career
False. That theory is an anachronism. At the time Kerry volunteered for swift-boats, they were a non-combat position. It was only after he had been transferred that they were moved from patrolling the (safe) deep ocean, to hazardous "brown water" missions on Vietnam's rivers. He didn't actually volunteer for combat- but like a good soldier, he went when ordered.
everyone else on the boat took the same risk, the guy fell off Kerry's boat, it was Kerry's duty to pick him up.
False. Jim Rassman had never been in Kerry's boat before. He fell from a different vessel.
Its just really a little disturbing someone could rack up 3 purple hearts and spend no appreciable time in the hospital.
Battle is fickle. I've seen one man with 7 Purple Hearts who was never out of action for even a day... and you've probably seen a certain other veteran on TV who got no Purple Heart, even though he was maimed and hospitalized for years.
What a monumentally stupid thing to do! And you guys wonder why Al Qaeda became such a problem?
Carter's support of the Taleban was irrelevant to Al Qaeda. (Notice that they are two DIFFERENT groups).
Al Qaeda became a problem because of George Bush's ill-considered Gulf War on Iraq. If he'd either left Iraq alone, or fully invaded them and deposed Hussein, then Al Qaeda wouldn't have been a problem to the USA.
Instead, he attacked Iraq, then pulled back and left 10,000 US soldiers sitting there in Saudi Arabia, and that's what caused the problem.
Just remember, Chevrolet released the original "Nova" back in the 70's.. in Mexico.
Just remember, Pemex release the original "Nova" (gasoline) back in the 60's... in Mexico.
And hey, they're still selling it today. In fact, Chevy had no problem with their Novas either.
who call themselves "Evangelical Christians", about 45% of the people, want to kill all the Jews.
No they don't. They want the Jews to rule Jerusalem until the End Times so that their Temple can be smitten by the Beast...
Their most important goal is to see that Biblical Accuracy is maintained. And that means that if the world doesn't match what Revelations predicts, then geographical borders must be redrawn to match! Evangelicals absolutely don't want to see the Jews exterminated... unless it's by the divine sword of God, that is.
The current method, trying to slap DRM on anything you buy, has proven ineffective and is starting to piss off a fair number of consumers, so is pretty pointless.
Wrong. Don't you dare claim a new invention is "proven ineffective" just because all the attempts so far have failed. Just think back to the technological improvements of the 20th century if you need help with the idea.
If the government cares about it enough, DRM can work. No product yet sold has come close to implementing the true technical+legal potential of DRM. Once Microsoft releases a version of Windows with Trusted Computing to run only on DRMed motherboards, then we'll have a test case to see if DRM is actually "proven ineffective".
So, flood the marketing channels, and make it so easy to buy his work that its not worth the trouble to make one for yourself.
I'm hopeful that this will one day happen- there certainly isn't any true technical or legal barrier to it today. Once it's quick, convenient, and inexpensive to download officially-purchased media, the social stigma of being known as a cheapskate will be enough to shutdown 95% of p2p infringers.
The only reason it hasn't happened already is greed+sloth on the part of the publishing companies. They're going to sit back and hope that the government stops infringement for them, before going through the effort to create their own system to make p2p "piracy" undesirable.
Nah. It's because going to the store and plunking down a few bucks is better than downloading it over a period of several days. Plus I like commentaries etc.
Those points are almost obselete already, and will be irrelevant in the long term.
"Pirates" encoders can include the commentary tracks with their releases, if there's any demand for it. Storing secondary audio tracks is SIMPLE.
And a normal USA broadband user can recieve 700 meg in under 3 hours. Worst case would be taking 12 hours overnight.
recompressed with Divx or Xvid or some similar format, I wonder what people he's been talking to...
Reading comprehension time. He didn't ask "Did anyone download a video made from a HD source?". It was "Anyone download a video that was STILL HD when you got it?".
Obviously, the answer to the 2nd question was "no", because 10+ gigabyte downloads just aren't worth it.
There aren't just two groups in consideration here- there's at least 3.
So really, what do you think the relative populations of those groups be? I'm pretty sure that 3 & 4 will dwarf 1 & 2, for reasons to follow.
You might say bandwidth is catching up fast, but Cuban has a lot of room to increase quality.
No he doesn't. You're talking about only technical quality (which should accurately be called resolution)- but for the economic question of how to encourage buyers over bootleggers, we need to discuss artistic quality.
That is, does the movie's imagery actually look good enough to actually deserve using the higher resolution to encode it? In my experience, that hardly ever happens. It's a rare film that needs more than 800x600 to do it justice. Increasing cinematic standards to consistently produce works that NEED HD resolution for completely appreciation would be prohibitively expensive.
I discovered MP3s in 1995. At the time I had a 486 50, a 2x CD-ROM, and no Internet connection.
You seem to be misremembering details. In that timeframe, you would've been using only MP2 files.
Wrong. Many, many end users are quite happy with VHS-level quality, which needs only the trim filesize of 30 meg/minute. There are even people who risk arrest to sneak videocameras into theaters, which produces an obviously absymal quality. The fact that they even bother proves that there exists demand for low-quality content.
He even pointed to the fact that when asked most people have never downloaded a video.
Wrong. he never said that. What he said was
- I ask if anyone in the room has ever downloaded or uploaded a movie or TV show in HD quality to or from a P2P network. No one has ever raised their hand.
That means nobody had downloaded High Definition content- not that they'd never downloaded a movie at all. Even today's DVD movies, at 3-10+ gigabytes, are too much for the average broadband user. But recompressed to a handy 700 meg by encoders like "divx", and the files become completely managable to send over Kazaa, Grokster, or bit torrent.Go rip a DVD and watch it at 320 x 240 with a grainy picture
If the DVD were standard television fare like Seinfeld or The Simpsons, even that quality would be tolerable. Many TV programs don't even have enough visual richness to justify DVD quality, not to mention HDTV (shows produced cinema-style, like HBO's originals, are of course exceptions).
But anyhow, pointing at the shortcomings of 320x240 is attacking a strawman. 320x240 needs only 3 meg/minute. 640x480, on the other hand, looks marginally acceptable at 3meg/min and completely fine at twice that.
I want to watch a uncompressed HD format with crystal clear clarity.
Your position is a minority. The HDTV industry is struggling to create consumer demand for what is, after all, a minor improvement to the TV watching experience.
Compare against the popularity of MP3 trading on Napster. The quality was far below CD audio, but the P2P users didn't seem to care!
Filesize is not enough to stop copyright infringement.
Let's check what the "constitution proper" has to say about this:
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8:
That's impossible. You'll need a heavy-duty 'rationalization' for such an inconsistent position.
Take a look inside the "base documents" at Article 5:
Honoring the base document means honoring Article 5, which means honoring the extensions...
I was referring to air terror,
In that case, then it's NEVER happened "on American soil". Because airplanes, ya see... they fly.
Although if you meant "American airspace", then it's still wrong. Armed hijackings had already happened in the USA, and other parts of America.
as for myself I'm always wary of flying.
You know that's irrational, right? Statistically it's just not something to worry about.
Computer control could increase this capacity but not infinitely
Yes, but "no more gridlock" doesn't imply "infinite road capacity".
A computer system can totally eliminate gridlock by simply not allowing cars to start a trip if the road capacity would be exceeded. True, you still experience a delay in reaching your destination- but the waiting is accomplished in the comfort of your own home, not cramped in a vehicle.
(Furthermore, someone in a big hurry could probably "bid" $2000 into the computer system to buy priority from other drivers...)
How is that different from what I said?
You said "they patented a specific [limited] device". Nintendo said "the invention is not to be limited".
Those two phrases are opposites. That means they're different.