Even if this guy turns out to be wrong for the reasons he gave, I wouldn't be surprised if modern society is messing with the evolution of humans compared to most other species in the past. Modern medicine may SAVE people that "should have" died and not passed on their genes. For better or worse, this is different than what happens outside of human society.
Ok, and how is that contradictory to the fact that HIS pilot certificate, as shown in the image in question, is clearly not "paper and printed on a laser printer." Its plastic and identical to the one in my wallet right now. A larger resolution image of the certificate shows that the issue date is June 6 2007, just 6 days before I got mine.
As another poster addressed, the fact is that the license shown IN THE PICTURE is clearly the modern plastic version. Are you suggesting that an elaborate forgery (and expensive overall hoax, including the ~$1000 found with the wallet) was committed? And that its unlikely/impossible for him to have found a reason to get a new card? Like, acquiring a new rating, losing the old card, or just wanting something less flimsy?
I believe Occam's razor would require us to assume that it isn't an overcomplicated sham, and in reality probably a set of unlikely circumstances that lead to the wallet being found but not the aircraft wreckage. Ever drop something small and end up finding it somewhere completely different from where you thought you heard/saw it land? Case closed.
Ok, but still makes the assumption thats an absurd hoax. Going with the safer assumption that its not a nearly pointless hoax: Its a plastic card in the picture, and plastic wouldn't get wrinkled like the paper does, which explains the original post's confusion over why "plastic" didn't get wrinkly and dirty like paper.
Show a casual user a DVD on a 42" 1080p TV from 8' away, then show them a bluray on the same TV from the same distance. Their jaw will drop unless they have worse than 20/40 vision.
The differences aren't small, you just have to know how to compare them.
Parent is referring to the fact that upscaling HAS to occur in either the TV or the player, and upscaling in the DVD player is only desirable if its BETTER scaling than your TV.
I have a Panasonic TV. Panasonic TVs have good scalers. "Upscaling DVD players" offer me nothing. A DVD played in my Panasonic RP82, over plain 480p component video, looks as good as a DVD is capable of looking on my TV. Upscaling can be done poorly (and thats where DVD players with 'good' upscalers come in), but it doesn't improve the quality of the image. It merely degrades it less.
Are all the people saying this basing their judgement on the "Gangs of NY" Bluray release? Because you'd have to have like 20/80 vision to not be able to tell the difference between a "properly made" DVD and a "properly made" bluray. UPCONVERSION DOES NOT ADD QUALITY, though if you're comparing a modern "upconverting" DVD player to an old, bad DVD player outputting over composite video, yes that will make some difference.
Watch Transformers on DVD and then watch it on Bluray (well, ok, I have it on HD-DVD but it justcame out on Bluray) and tell me bluray doesn't blow it away. If it doesn't, you're sitting too far away from a TV that is too small, or you need glasses. And don't think the "you need glasses" part is meant to be an insult. My brother wears glasses and he had them off when he walked into the room while i was watching Transformers on HD-DVD. And he's like "whats the big deal?" I said "Put your glasses on." And he does... and he's like "Oh, that DOES look freakin awesome. Couldn't really tell the difference without my glasses though"
TL;DR version: Upconverting DOES NOT make DVDs look like Bluray. There is no way to make 480p at 5-10mbits look like 1080p at 20-40mbits.
I find that the difference between cooking on a gas stove and cooking on an electric stove matters if you have cheaply made lightweight cookware, and/or a particularly cheap electric stove.
If you have good cookware, it will stay a fairly constant and controllable temperature despite the range cycling on and off. Just needs more mass in the equation.
All of Id's games are engine showcases. Nothing they have made would stand on its own if it weren't for the fact that they also had fancy technology at the time.
I think the oddest one of them all is Sim Earth which was a pretty crappy game that no one really bought, but I still have the manual and disks and everything. You can tell I'm a LucasArts fan, haha.
Temple of Doom is the reason PG-13 was created. There was no PG-13 rating at the time but the heart-ripping-out sequence was just a bit too gory for the PG rating so somebody yelled THINK OF THE CHILDREN and thus PG-13 was created. Which means Temple of Doom itself is, in fact, PG.
And the odds of winning the lotto are twice as good if I buy two tickets. Thats why all the people who buy 10 tickets every day keep winning the lotto, right? Oh wait...
I say if you don't trust your data to striped hard drives, you shouldn't trust your data on a single drive. If the stuff you have saved isn't that important, might as well take the performance benefit of striping and back up the most important stuff to a thumb drive or whatever.
For the same reason that you don't automatically win the lotto by buying two tickets. "Doubling/halving" the odds actually isn't significant if the original chance was insignificant, which is what all the OMG DO THE MATH people fail to realize.
Haha, good point. At first i was going to correct you and say "temporal dithering is better than spatial dithering" but then I realized you were making a slightly different point - that it really only is "3 colors" (Separate issues, but an interesting thought nonetheless). I thought you were implying that I said there was something wrong with temporal dithering (there isn't.) A 6 bit panel with temporal and spatial dithering is better than one with just one or the other. Its why the only time I notice any artifacts at all is when I'm viewing a web page with a one pixel alternating grid of colors, and i scroll through it slowly - you can see the dithering/overdrive/whatever it is messing with the pixels. But I don't ever see banding in games or photos, because it dithers in a thoroughly non-offensive fashion. And as my original post indicates, I am a picture quality whore with 20/10 vision . If i can tolerate it, anyone can.
Thats not exactly how it works. A higher CRI backlight actually makes it easier to achieve any specific color, not harder, because the light source omits fewer intermediate wavelengths. It will display whatever it is calibrated to display. If you had an LCD with a perfect black body radiator as a light source, you'd still be able to do srgb just fine.
I'm the guy that you'd find arguing over how much LCDs suck and how much better CRTs are a couple years ago. But my CRT died last month (Mitsubishi 19" Aperture Grille, it was about the best monitor you could get short of the 22" version of the same), and I picked up a Samsung 226CW. There are only two things it doesn't do as well as the CRT:
Absolute black level. Off-axis viewing degradation.
The color is actually BETTER, DESPITE the 6 bit panel. The reason why 6 bit is not a big deal is because the panel response is so fast that it can temporally dither two colors into one, and you don't even notice that its doing it. For photography, its actually better color reproduction because its more consistent than CRT. On top of that, the "C" model in particular (as opposed to the 226BW) has a 95 CRI backlight, which means the spectrum the backlight produces is much less peaky and closer to natural sunlight. Altogether, the result is more accurate color than I'd get on a CRT. Plus I get 2ms response time so gaming is fine too.
The 226CW may be TN, but its one of the best panels out there. I thought I was going to be more disappointed than I actually was. In fact, I wasn't disappointed at all because it turned out better in most regards, not just "almost as good." It can produce smooth color because spatial and temporal dithering on fast monitors is surprisingly effective, and its actually more accurate because of the better quality back light.
Not that this was an article about CRT vs LCD, but I'm saying that TN panels have become common not just BECAUSE they're cheap but because the good ones (as cheap as they are) are SURPRISINGLY good. Apple may have used a shitty 6 bit panel instead of, say, Samsung's 6 bit panel, but the number of native colors is surprisingly not that big a deal, even if you're a picture-accuracy freak.
(It doesn't excuse them from not clarifying whether it was TN or IPS though, and in fact it pisses me off that no manufacturers are clear on what overall technology goes into their LCDs)
Heat and temperature are not the same thing. If it produces 140 lumens per watt, I believe that makes it something like 50% efficient (which is insanely high for lighting). That means a 100 watt lightbulb of this technology would turn 50 watts or so into heat, and 50 watts or so into light. A 100 watt incandescant is turning 85 watts into heat and 15 watts into light. So even if it runs at a higher temperature, its confined to a very small space.
They will never succeed in getting this technology in people's homes in the first place. People would just say "Nah i'll take the one WITHOUT the camera built in." And that'll be the end of that.
Actually, I think he was getting at the point that the supply (of internet bandwidth) was significantly less than the demand for games and the content producers won't have any direct control over your internet connection.
If the demand for a DVD is higher than expected, they press more copies.
If the demand for a download is higher than expected, they scratch their heads and say "damn, the internet is too slow." Its not that there aren't long term solutions, its just that the ONLY way to improve bandwidth is to outlay the cash required to upgrade all the routers and wires and everything needed.
Betacam SP and Betamax are almost completely unrelated. A sibling post hinted at this, but it really must be clarified that the broadcast format and the consumer format are two completely different animals. TV crews didn't "decide to use the consumer video format," they chose a completely different and significantly better professional format that records on different tapes in different cassettes with high bandwidth analog component instead of low bandwidth analog composite video. (Technically color-under y/c but the point is its inferior to separate YPbPr).
Betacam SP has SIGNIFICANTLY higher resolution than both VHS and Betamax, as it has ~6mhz of luma bandwidth and about 2mhz of chroma bandwidth.
The consumer formats are more like 2.5khz luma and.5khz chroma. Revisionist historians might say that betamax had "better" quality than VHS, but the reality is the quality difference was negligible.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if this guy turns out to be wrong for the reasons he gave, I wouldn't be surprised if modern society is messing with the evolution of humans compared to most other species in the past. Modern medicine may SAVE people that "should have" died and not passed on their genes. For better or worse, this is different than what happens outside of human society.
Only old people in Korea get cheap car insurance for playing free video games.
Ok, and how is that contradictory to the fact that HIS pilot certificate, as shown in the image in question, is clearly not "paper and printed on a laser printer." Its plastic and identical to the one in my wallet right now. A larger resolution image of the certificate shows that the issue date is June 6 2007, just 6 days before I got mine.
As another poster addressed, the fact is that the license shown IN THE PICTURE is clearly the modern plastic version. Are you suggesting that an elaborate forgery (and expensive overall hoax, including the ~$1000 found with the wallet) was committed? And that its unlikely/impossible for him to have found a reason to get a new card? Like, acquiring a new rating, losing the old card, or just wanting something less flimsy?
I believe Occam's razor would require us to assume that it isn't an overcomplicated sham, and in reality probably a set of unlikely circumstances that lead to the wallet being found but not the aircraft wreckage. Ever drop something small and end up finding it somewhere completely different from where you thought you heard/saw it land? Case closed.
Ok, but still makes the assumption thats an absurd hoax. Going with the safer assumption that its not a nearly pointless hoax: Its a plastic card in the picture, and plastic wouldn't get wrinkled like the paper does, which explains the original post's confusion over why "plastic" didn't get wrinkly and dirty like paper.
The other card and money are paper. Pilots licenses are made out of plastic. It wouldn't get wrinkled/dirty like a piece of paper.
Show a casual user a DVD on a 42" 1080p TV from 8' away, then show them a bluray on the same TV from the same distance. Their jaw will drop unless they have worse than 20/40 vision. The differences aren't small, you just have to know how to compare them.
Parent is referring to the fact that upscaling HAS to occur in either the TV or the player, and upscaling in the DVD player is only desirable if its BETTER scaling than your TV.
I have a Panasonic TV. Panasonic TVs have good scalers. "Upscaling DVD players" offer me nothing. A DVD played in my Panasonic RP82, over plain 480p component video, looks as good as a DVD is capable of looking on my TV. Upscaling can be done poorly (and thats where DVD players with 'good' upscalers come in), but it doesn't improve the quality of the image. It merely degrades it less.
Why should somebody be asked to leave an all you can eat restaurant because they ate all the food and there was nothing left to consume?
Are all the people saying this basing their judgement on the "Gangs of NY" Bluray release? Because you'd have to have like 20/80 vision to not be able to tell the difference between a "properly made" DVD and a "properly made" bluray. UPCONVERSION DOES NOT ADD QUALITY, though if you're comparing a modern "upconverting" DVD player to an old, bad DVD player outputting over composite video, yes that will make some difference.
Watch Transformers on DVD and then watch it on Bluray (well, ok, I have it on HD-DVD but it justcame out on Bluray) and tell me bluray doesn't blow it away. If it doesn't, you're sitting too far away from a TV that is too small, or you need glasses. And don't think the "you need glasses" part is meant to be an insult. My brother wears glasses and he had them off when he walked into the room while i was watching Transformers on HD-DVD. And he's like "whats the big deal?" I said "Put your glasses on." And he does... and he's like "Oh, that DOES look freakin awesome. Couldn't really tell the difference without my glasses though"
TL;DR version: Upconverting DOES NOT make DVDs look like Bluray. There is no way to make 480p at 5-10mbits look like 1080p at 20-40mbits.
I find that the difference between cooking on a gas stove and cooking on an electric stove matters if you have cheaply made lightweight cookware, and/or a particularly cheap electric stove.
If you have good cookware, it will stay a fairly constant and controllable temperature despite the range cycling on and off. Just needs more mass in the equation.
The stock frog picture in the article isn't even an African Clawed Frog. They look more like this: http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/frogs/gallery/featured.php?image=6&page=featured/index
And live underwater.
All of Id's games are engine showcases. Nothing they have made would stand on its own if it weren't for the fact that they also had fancy technology at the time.
I took a picture of them on my shelf. http://www.cowclops.net/boxes.jpg
I think the oddest one of them all is Sim Earth which was a pretty crappy game that no one really bought, but I still have the manual and disks and everything. You can tell I'm a LucasArts fan, haha.
Temple of Doom is the reason PG-13 was created. There was no PG-13 rating at the time but the heart-ripping-out sequence was just a bit too gory for the PG rating so somebody yelled THINK OF THE CHILDREN and thus PG-13 was created. Which means Temple of Doom itself is, in fact, PG.
Last Crusade is PG-13.
And the odds of winning the lotto are twice as good if I buy two tickets. Thats why all the people who buy 10 tickets every day keep winning the lotto, right? Oh wait...
I say if you don't trust your data to striped hard drives, you shouldn't trust your data on a single drive. If the stuff you have saved isn't that important, might as well take the performance benefit of striping and back up the most important stuff to a thumb drive or whatever.
For the same reason that you don't automatically win the lotto by buying two tickets. "Doubling/halving" the odds actually isn't significant if the original chance was insignificant, which is what all the OMG DO THE MATH people fail to realize.
Panama Hat: SO DO YOU!
Haha, good point. At first i was going to correct you and say "temporal dithering is better than spatial dithering" but then I realized you were making a slightly different point - that it really only is "3 colors" (Separate issues, but an interesting thought nonetheless). I thought you were implying that I said there was something wrong with temporal dithering (there isn't.) A 6 bit panel with temporal and spatial dithering is better than one with just one or the other. Its why the only time I notice any artifacts at all is when I'm viewing a web page with a one pixel alternating grid of colors, and i scroll through it slowly - you can see the dithering/overdrive/whatever it is messing with the pixels. But I don't ever see banding in games or photos, because it dithers in a thoroughly non-offensive fashion. And as my original post indicates, I am a picture quality whore with 20/10 vision . If i can tolerate it, anyone can.
Thats not exactly how it works. A higher CRI backlight actually makes it easier to achieve any specific color, not harder, because the light source omits fewer intermediate wavelengths. It will display whatever it is calibrated to display. If you had an LCD with a perfect black body radiator as a light source, you'd still be able to do srgb just fine.
I'm the guy that you'd find arguing over how much LCDs suck and how much better CRTs are a couple years ago. But my CRT died last month (Mitsubishi 19" Aperture Grille, it was about the best monitor you could get short of the 22" version of the same), and I picked up a Samsung 226CW. There are only two things it doesn't do as well as the CRT:
Absolute black level.
Off-axis viewing degradation.
The color is actually BETTER, DESPITE the 6 bit panel. The reason why 6 bit is not a big deal is because the panel response is so fast that it can temporally dither two colors into one, and you don't even notice that its doing it. For photography, its actually better color reproduction because its more consistent than CRT. On top of that, the "C" model in particular (as opposed to the 226BW) has a 95 CRI backlight, which means the spectrum the backlight produces is much less peaky and closer to natural sunlight. Altogether, the result is more accurate color than I'd get on a CRT. Plus I get 2ms response time so gaming is fine too.
The 226CW may be TN, but its one of the best panels out there. I thought I was going to be more disappointed than I actually was. In fact, I wasn't disappointed at all because it turned out better in most regards, not just "almost as good." It can produce smooth color because spatial and temporal dithering on fast monitors is surprisingly effective, and its actually more accurate because of the better quality back light.
Not that this was an article about CRT vs LCD, but I'm saying that TN panels have become common not just BECAUSE they're cheap but because the good ones (as cheap as they are) are SURPRISINGLY good. Apple may have used a shitty 6 bit panel instead of, say, Samsung's 6 bit panel, but the number of native colors is surprisingly not that big a deal, even if you're a picture-accuracy freak.
(It doesn't excuse them from not clarifying whether it was TN or IPS though, and in fact it pisses me off that no manufacturers are clear on what overall technology goes into their LCDs)
Heat and temperature are not the same thing. If it produces 140 lumens per watt, I believe that makes it something like 50% efficient (which is insanely high for lighting). That means a 100 watt lightbulb of this technology would turn 50 watts or so into heat, and 50 watts or so into light. A 100 watt incandescant is turning 85 watts into heat and 15 watts into light. So even if it runs at a higher temperature, its confined to a very small space.
This isn't dangerous at all.
They will never succeed in getting this technology in people's homes in the first place. People would just say "Nah i'll take the one WITHOUT the camera built in." And that'll be the end of that.
The snozzberries taste like snozzberries!
Actually, I think he was getting at the point that the supply (of internet bandwidth) was significantly less than the demand for games and the content producers won't have any direct control over your internet connection.
If the demand for a DVD is higher than expected, they press more copies.
If the demand for a download is higher than expected, they scratch their heads and say "damn, the internet is too slow." Its not that there aren't long term solutions, its just that the ONLY way to improve bandwidth is to outlay the cash required to upgrade all the routers and wires and everything needed.
2.5mhz and .5mhz that is, on the consumer specs, in case anybody was planning on jumping on my typo.
Betacam SP and Betamax are almost completely unrelated. A sibling post hinted at this, but it really must be clarified that the broadcast format and the consumer format are two completely different animals. TV crews didn't "decide to use the consumer video format," they chose a completely different and significantly better professional format that records on different tapes in different cassettes with high bandwidth analog component instead of low bandwidth analog composite video. (Technically color-under y/c but the point is its inferior to separate YPbPr).
.5khz chroma. Revisionist historians might say that betamax had "better" quality than VHS, but the reality is the quality difference was negligible.
Betacam SP has SIGNIFICANTLY higher resolution than both VHS and Betamax, as it has ~6mhz of luma bandwidth and about 2mhz of chroma bandwidth.
The consumer formats are more like 2.5khz luma and