... companies simply don't give raises if they don't have to. If you want more money, you need to get a new job.
My experience has actually been quite different from this. I was hired into a large company straight out of college. My starting salary was lower than other people on my team, but they all had 5+ years of experience, so fair enough. Since then, I've received annual pay increases averaging about 15% for four years to get me "caught up" with my peers. I've never threatened to leave, or demanded pay increases. I guess I'm lucky...
Not all companies treat their employers that way... I'm an exempt employee for a Fortune 50 company and occasionally have to work weekends or evenings for software installs or dealing with issues. That was part of the deal I signed up for in taking the job. My boss is constantly telling everyone on my team to take care of themselves during slow times. I don't track "comp time" - I just come and go as I need and it isn't questioned unless it's egregiously obvious that someone is taking advantage of that flexibility.
Certainly a lot of this is manger discretion, but I'm constantly amazed at the horror stories of some of the posters here. I guess I'm lucky to have a manager that seems to care about her employees.
I run in Five Fingers three to four times a week. I love them. Most of my runs are on concrete or gravel paths. Like running barefoot, you definetely have to re-train yourself on how to run, though. I learned POSE running a couple of years ago and I've never looked back.
I completely agree, and should have addressed that in my post. Ultimatly, I don't think it really matters whether the company is large or small, it matters who your boss is. A crappy boss can make you life hell in large or small companies.
Gee, not that you're over generalizing or anything...
I'm four years out of college, and I've worked for a Fortune 50 company for the past two years and had great experiences. My management has actively encouraged me to take more training, even cross training with other parts of the company in case I want to go a different direction in my career. They know that I'm going to learn and grow, but they want to do everything they can to keep my knowledge and talent in the company.
I was just given a 15% mid-year raise (I have less experience than all of my co-workers, but perform at the same level, so they wanted to "catch me up"). I've also been told (more or less), that I'll be promoted come year end, and I trust my manager enough to know this will happen.
My management seems to genuinely care about me as a person. I'm allowed to work around my personal schedule, coming and going as I see fit. If I work late one day to get something done, I don't need to ask if I can take off early the next day to make up for it.
In short, I'm respected by the people I work for.
I'm sure there are a lot of hellish working environments in large companies, probably even within my own, given how culture can vary accross one large company. Just don't assume that a large comany will automatically be a terrible place to work.
I work for the Credit Card division of one of the largest banks/financial services companies in the United States. We have a very large online presence and have been targeted extensively by phishers. It has become a very serious problem. Not only does it cause direct financial loss when accounts are compromised, but we have delayed several new features due to phishing risk. We are in fact talking about a LOT of money. It is one of the top couple of issues for the entire corporation.
What you saw in the demo was a mistake then, VC-1 looks very good, ask Joe Kane.
VC-1 supports 10-bit 4:2:2 AFAIK. I would also love to see it jack up the bitrate and see what it could do. My point is it looks better than MPEG2 and a given bit rate.
Its not about throwing away more information, its about getting the best possible picture at any given bitrate. Incidentaly, most HD encoded in MPEG2 has MASSIVE filtering that squashes high frequency detial. The effective resolution of OTA broadcasts is more like 1440*1080 than 1920. Using VC-1 will INCREASE high frequency detail compared to MPEG2. Its simply a better codec.
MPEG2 may be lacking in certain efficiencies, but MPEG2 with enough bandwidth (and the point of Blu-ray was to GET enough bandwidth) looks AWESOME.
While high bandwidth MPEG2 looks awesome, with even less bandwidth, VC-1 looks even BETTER. This means better looking video and fitting more of that video on each disc. Sounds like a win to me.
The draw-back to new CODECs? HDTV was SUPPOSED to standardize on MPEG2, not because it was the best, but because it was pretty good when it came out and would be cheap to implement by the changeover in a few years.
HDTV was never supposed to standardize on MPEG2, ATSC transmission is standardized on MPEG2, but that standard was never intended to govern pre-recorded media.
A wonderful day was nearly upon us, Firewire for EVERYTHING but videogame systems. We were going to be able to use a basic remote instead of $200-$800 programmable remotes that depend upon screwy macros.
Instead, we're going to lose the Firewire stereo, and instead suffer with messes of cables and macros...
A utopia of only needing one type of cable is a nice thought, but I don't want to sacrifice video quality for it. I also fail to see how a standardized codec means you need less remotes? You still have as many devices to control, except for maybe one (cable or OTA box). Doesn't make any sense to me. Oh, and you are still going to have a mess of wires behind your system (as will I) with speaker wire and power cords, etc...
I know there is a lot of anti-MS sentiment around here, but this is really great news. VC-1 (VC-9) is a great codec for HD and is vastly superior to the aging MPEG2 standard. Think better picture quality at a third of the bitrate on 1080p material. Note that the inclusion of VC-1 does NOT mean the inclusion of any kind of Microsoft DRM. They are completely separate issues We will certainly get some kind of restrictive DRM, but that is a separate issue from VC-1.
Please note that MPEG2 is still a part of the spec and content providers will still be free to use it if they choose. I believe there is still a chance for H.264 to be included as well. (HD-DVD includs all three codecs)
I'm of the opinion that Blu-ray will ultimately win this format war, but we shall see. It has a nice capacity advantage over HD-DVD (and now a next-gen codec to utilize it efficiently). I think the only real advantage HD-DVD has right now is intial lower duplication costs due to its physical similarity to DVD. Sony has stated they are going to run with Blu-ray to the bitter end, so I expect them to press enough discs to overcome that initial disadvantage.
Its relatively likely that Blu-Ray will end up supporting the corona codec (WM9) for the final pre-recorded disc spec. The current spec only supports MPEG2 which is VASTLY less efficient for encoding HD video. You can get similar picture quality with WM9 at around a third of the bandwidth of an MPEG2 stream.
Last I heard, BDF (Blu-ray disc forum) was going to start evaluating WM9and H.264 for possible inclusion into the spec. I think its very likely at least one will be approved, otherwise HD-DVD has a big advantage with a lot more effective storage space do to the much more efficient codec.
Joe Kane (one of the experts in video imaging quality, and a person who's opinion I greatly respect) is very enthusiastic about WM9. According to him, it can currently provide images that he says are superior to DVHS at less than a third of the bitrate on 720p material.
I agree that a Microsoft product that is part of the next generation DVD spec could be a potential problem, given MS's business practices. But WM9 really does appear to be the best tool for the job.
Excellent magazine! I also have subscriptions to Wired and Discover, but Smithsonian is the one I look forward to every month. They cover a great range of topics and the articles are generally very well written and photographed. It's a lot like National Geographic in some ways, but with a little wider range, and more in-depth content. Great mag!
Although I probably wouldn't use this service anyway , I wonder if the movies will be available in OAR (original aspect ratio). The Starz! channel shows all widescreen movies in pan n' scan or open matte as far as I know (as do most other "premium" channels). I will activley discourage anyone I know from using this service unless they offer OAR for most of the films.
Look, the Bush Administration has done something that has never been done by any previous administration: they're actively distorting truth in the reports that low-level non-appointed staffers put out. Sure, in the past political appointees could always be counted on to put spin on things (and even bury information, like Reagan did with AIDS and the CDC), but actively creating misleading information was not done by the career service government workers.
If you actually believe this you are seriously naive about some of the crap past administrations have pulled.
I don't think its quite that simple. While I don't agree with most of the MPAA rhetoric, your point (A) is faulty logic.
If Piracy does in fact have a negative impact at the box office, this eats into the studios profits. Eventually they are going to want to start making movies cheaper to offset this. One way to do this is to start paying cast and crew less money, or simply cut corners by hiring less crew members.
While I understand that my scenario isn't the only way this can play out, it is one possible way, and is clearly what workers in the movie industry are worried about.
I'm not saying that projector bulb prices aren't inflated, but they are certainly a LONG way from your floor lamp analogy.
So you only need to project 16 colors, do you really thing there is ANY market for a projector like that? Generally speaking a projector is going to cost at least $1000 or so, why would you spend that kind of money and put a cheap ass bulb in it that can't produce a good image?
I never said the world was "married" to 6500k, only that is the video standard and most projectors at least try to offer something reasonably close to that.
I've heard a GE engineer say that their projector bulbs cost about 10 times as much to produce than a regular lamp of the same wattage. Add this to the fact they they are shipped in a MUCH lower volume and walla, high price.
If you want a crappy bulb for your projector, fine, but most of us want to get the best image possible. I'd be ecstatic if bulb prices came down significantly, but I won't pretend that its a simple issue where the manufacturer is simply ripping us off.
My living room needs a lot of brightness and lighting. My car needs a lot of brightness and lighting. But I don't pay $200/bulb to keep either supplied. As I said, I think a significant portion of the cost is that they need a small package. I can buy a 500Watt halogen for my floor standing torch lamp for what...$20? That's got to be just about as bright as whatever's in your average consumer projector. So why does it cost $20 in a lamp and $200 in a projector. The bulb isn't doing anything technological! It's a light source, period.
This is so completely uninformed it is reduculous. Its clear you have not actually researched the issue. There is a HUGE difference between your $20 floor lamp bulb and a projector bulb. There is quite a bit of engineering that goes into making projector bulbs because thay need a very specific spectra of output. Your floor lamp does not put out anything close to 6500k light (video standard). Put your lamp bulb in a projector and you will have a projector that will be impossible to calibrate to any sort of decent color balance.
As another poster mentioned, the best place to go is the AVSForum. However, here is a quick breakdown of your options.
I would not suggest rolling a DIY projector, you will get much higher quality image from a basic manufactured unit. Entry level is around $1000 at the moment, a couple thousand for a native HD unit. (You can find cheaper stuff in the used market).
There are four primary technologies being used in frong projecttion right now:
LCD - Cheap, but generally considered a good value. Lower contrast and more screendoor than other technologies, but can still look pretty good. You can get a nice 1280x720 (720p) LCD projector for about $2000. Check out the Panasonic AE500 or the Sanyo Z2. Sony's HS20 is also nice for a little more money. Lesser expensive LCDs are available but generally throw relatively poor images (IMHO).
DLP - Very popular right now. Generally provides a better picture than LCD. Limited to 720p for now. A true 16x9 HD DLP projector will run you more than an LCD. Probably looking at at around $4000 minimum to over $10000. The BenQ 8700 is a GREAT value at the moment. Lower priced DLPs are also available, all the way to $999 for the InFocus X1. These lower priced DLPs are generally not high-def and most 4x3, instead of 16x9. Use of an anamorphic lense can turn them into native 16x9 projectors, but adds cost and complexity.
DLPs have the best contrast of current consumer projectors by a good margin. One thing to be carful of is that a some of people see rainbows or get headaches when watching DLPs. This is less of an issue on newer models with a faster color wheel, but may be an issue on less expensive models. Check out brands like BenQ, InFocus, NEC, Marantz, Dwin, Sim2 for good DLP projectors.
LCOS - This is the technology of choice for JVC. It has lower contrast than DLP but throws a smoother image due to its higher fill-factor. Its often described as very "film-like". Can support higher resolutions than DLP for now. A lot of the current LCOS projectors are large and not very user friendly. There are some more players entering the LCOS market, including Sony, with a native 1080p device, but it quite expensive. I'm not quite as up-to-date on LCOS projectors as DLP and LCD, but its worth a look.
CRT - The grandaddy of projection. CRT can throw a wonderful image, altough digitals are catching up quickly. Manufacturers aren't really making them anymore so most are found in the used market. They are big, HEAVY, and require lot s of maintenence. They are also generally dimmer than digitals.
Exactly! Most of the comments in this thread talk about teaching methods, good/bad teachers, etc. Although good teachers a great, this ignores what I think is the fundamental problem -
It is the student's responsibility to learn.
Kids do not understand that they have to take responsibility for thier own education. If they don't understand something they blame the teacher, instead of taking the time to learn it.
I know several teenage girls that think they are not very good at math. They get C's in high school level math classes and say its just because they aren't good at it. If they took half the time studying for math as they do shopping for clothes, they would understand the concepts ten times better and have As.
Religion and extra-terrestrial life are not mutually exclusive. There is nothing fundamental about most religions that says that only earth can harbor life. I know plenty of people that are quite religious that believe it is likely that there is life elsewhere in the universe.
If it had been a stand-alone film then it's highly doubtful that it would have been so successful at gaining the votes of the Academy's members.
That's a meaningless statement. It wasn't a standalone film. If it was it would have been made entirely differently. Return of the King in its current form simply would never exist without FOTR & TTT, so what's the point in creating such hypotheticals? Its not meant to be a standalone film, why would you treat it line one?
For under $1000 dollars, most camcorders from major brands are pretty similar to each other in functionality. Some might have cool little features that others don't, but if you are just doing point-and-shoot type stuff it doesn't make too much difference.
I think miniDV is still the best bet for PQ/price. I wouldn't think about going to a tapeless model yet. Home videos are something you keep for a LONG time. You may be watching these 20 or more down the road and tape is still the best archival format.
Just pick something out that has the features you want. The tiny ones that will fit in the palm of your hand will be towards the top of your price range, but they aren't funtionally much different than the less expensive larger ones.
CNET has a camcorder review section with lots of user comments. That might be a good place to start.
The article was slashdotted, heres my personal guide:
CRT - Still probably capable of the best picture for now (especially at the high end, think G90). Requires much more maintenance than digital technlogies (convergence, etc.). Essentially infinite on/off contrast, not quite as good ANSI contrast. No screendoor. High end guns capable of fully resolving 1080p.
DLP - Best contrast numbers of the digital technologies. Consumer units limited to 720p for now. Screendoor is pretty limited. Some people may see rainbows on one chip devices due to color wheel (pretty limited on new HD2+ machines). Most machines not terribly bright when compared to LCD. Limited to projection devices.
LCD - Poor contrast, very hight black level. Most screendoor of the digitals. Can be in projection or panel configurations. Considerably less expensive than other digital techs. Scales to higher resolutions than DLP for now.
LCOS - Least screendoor of digital technologies. Often appears "smoothest" or most like a CRT to people. Contrast numbers not up to DLP's standards. Not a large number of LCOS unites on the market for now, but looks like more will be coming soon. Many see it as the ultimate sucessor to CRT rear-projection.
Plasma - Least bang for the buck of the digitals. Only a flat-panel technology, no projection. Reletively poor contrast numbers.
Slashdot Mirror
... companies simply don't give raises if they don't have to. If you want more money, you need to get a new job.
My experience has actually been quite different from this. I was hired into a large company straight out of college. My starting salary was lower than other people on my team, but they all had 5+ years of experience, so fair enough. Since then, I've received annual pay increases averaging about 15% for four years to get me "caught up" with my peers. I've never threatened to leave, or demanded pay increases. I guess I'm lucky...
Not all companies treat their employers that way... I'm an exempt employee for a Fortune 50 company and occasionally have to work weekends or evenings for software installs or dealing with issues. That was part of the deal I signed up for in taking the job. My boss is constantly telling everyone on my team to take care of themselves during slow times. I don't track "comp time" - I just come and go as I need and it isn't questioned unless it's egregiously obvious that someone is taking advantage of that flexibility.
Certainly a lot of this is manger discretion, but I'm constantly amazed at the horror stories of some of the posters here. I guess I'm lucky to have a manager that seems to care about her employees.
I run in Five Fingers three to four times a week. I love them. Most of my runs are on concrete or gravel paths. Like running barefoot, you definetely have to re-train yourself on how to run, though. I learned POSE running a couple of years ago and I've never looked back.
I completely agree, and should have addressed that in my post. Ultimatly, I don't think it really matters whether the company is large or small, it matters who your boss is. A crappy boss can make you life hell in large or small companies.
Gee, not that you're over generalizing or anything...
I'm four years out of college, and I've worked for a Fortune 50 company for the past two years and had great experiences. My management has actively encouraged me to take more training, even cross training with other parts of the company in case I want to go a different direction in my career. They know that I'm going to learn and grow, but they want to do everything they can to keep my knowledge and talent in the company.
I was just given a 15% mid-year raise (I have less experience than all of my co-workers, but perform at the same level, so they wanted to "catch me up"). I've also been told (more or less), that I'll be promoted come year end, and I trust my manager enough to know this will happen.
My management seems to genuinely care about me as a person. I'm allowed to work around my personal schedule, coming and going as I see fit. If I work late one day to get something done, I don't need to ask if I can take off early the next day to make up for it.
In short, I'm respected by the people I work for.
I'm sure there are a lot of hellish working environments in large companies, probably even within my own, given how culture can vary accross one large company. Just don't assume that a large comany will automatically be a terrible place to work.
I work for the Credit Card division of one of the largest banks/financial services companies in the United States. We have a very large online presence and have been targeted extensively by phishers. It has become a very serious problem. Not only does it cause direct financial loss when accounts are compromised, but we have delayed several new features due to phishing risk. We are in fact talking about a LOT of money. It is one of the top couple of issues for the entire corporation.
What you saw in the demo was a mistake then, VC-1 looks very good, ask Joe Kane. VC-1 supports 10-bit 4:2:2 AFAIK. I would also love to see it jack up the bitrate and see what it could do. My point is it looks better than MPEG2 and a given bit rate. Its not about throwing away more information, its about getting the best possible picture at any given bitrate. Incidentaly, most HD encoded in MPEG2 has MASSIVE filtering that squashes high frequency detial. The effective resolution of OTA broadcasts is more like 1440*1080 than 1920. Using VC-1 will INCREASE high frequency detail compared to MPEG2. Its simply a better codec.
MPEG2 may be lacking in certain efficiencies, but MPEG2 with enough bandwidth (and the point of Blu-ray was to GET enough bandwidth) looks AWESOME.
While high bandwidth MPEG2 looks awesome, with even less bandwidth, VC-1 looks even BETTER. This means better looking video and fitting more of that video on each disc. Sounds like a win to me.
The draw-back to new CODECs? HDTV was SUPPOSED to standardize on MPEG2, not because it was the best, but because it was pretty good when it came out and would be cheap to implement by the changeover in a few years.
HDTV was never supposed to standardize on MPEG2, ATSC transmission is standardized on MPEG2, but that standard was never intended to govern pre-recorded media.
A wonderful day was nearly upon us, Firewire for EVERYTHING but videogame systems. We were going to be able to use a basic remote instead of $200-$800 programmable remotes that depend upon screwy macros. Instead, we're going to lose the Firewire stereo, and instead suffer with messes of cables and macros...
A utopia of only needing one type of cable is a nice thought, but I don't want to sacrifice video quality for it. I also fail to see how a standardized codec means you need less remotes? You still have as many devices to control, except for maybe one (cable or OTA box). Doesn't make any sense to me. Oh, and you are still going to have a mess of wires behind your system (as will I) with speaker wire and power cords, etc...
I know there is a lot of anti-MS sentiment around here, but this is really great news. VC-1 (VC-9) is a great codec for HD and is vastly superior to the aging MPEG2 standard. Think better picture quality at a third of the bitrate on 1080p material. Note that the inclusion of VC-1 does NOT mean the inclusion of any kind of Microsoft DRM. They are completely separate issues We will certainly get some kind of restrictive DRM, but that is a separate issue from VC-1.
Please note that MPEG2 is still a part of the spec and content providers will still be free to use it if they choose. I believe there is still a chance for H.264 to be included as well. (HD-DVD includs all three codecs)
I'm of the opinion that Blu-ray will ultimately win this format war, but we shall see. It has a nice capacity advantage over HD-DVD (and now a next-gen codec to utilize it efficiently). I think the only real advantage HD-DVD has right now is intial lower duplication costs due to its physical similarity to DVD. Sony has stated they are going to run with Blu-ray to the bitter end, so I expect them to press enough discs to overcome that initial disadvantage.
Its relatively likely that Blu-Ray will end up supporting the corona codec (WM9) for the final pre-recorded disc spec. The current spec only supports MPEG2 which is VASTLY less efficient for encoding HD video. You can get similar picture quality with WM9 at around a third of the bandwidth of an MPEG2 stream.
Last I heard, BDF (Blu-ray disc forum) was going to start evaluating WM9and H.264 for possible inclusion into the spec. I think its very likely at least one will be approved, otherwise HD-DVD has a big advantage with a lot more effective storage space do to the much more efficient codec.
Joe Kane (one of the experts in video imaging quality, and a person who's opinion I greatly respect) is very enthusiastic about WM9. According to him, it can currently provide images that he says are superior to DVHS at less than a third of the bitrate on 720p material.
I agree that a Microsoft product that is part of the next generation DVD spec could be a potential problem, given MS's business practices. But WM9 really does appear to be the best tool for the job.
Excellent magazine! I also have subscriptions to Wired and Discover, but Smithsonian is the one I look forward to every month. They cover a great range of topics and the articles are generally very well written and photographed. It's a lot like National Geographic in some ways, but with a little wider range, and more in-depth content. Great mag!
Although I probably wouldn't use this service anyway , I wonder if the movies will be available in OAR (original aspect ratio). The Starz! channel shows all widescreen movies in pan n' scan or open matte as far as I know (as do most other "premium" channels). I will activley discourage anyone I know from using this service unless they offer OAR for most of the films.
Look, the Bush Administration has done something that has never been done by any previous administration: they're actively distorting truth in the reports that low-level non-appointed staffers put out. Sure, in the past political appointees could always be counted on to put spin on things (and even bury information, like Reagan did with AIDS and the CDC), but actively creating misleading information was not done by the career service government workers.
If you actually believe this you are seriously naive about some of the crap past administrations have pulled.
I don't think its quite that simple. While I don't agree with most of the MPAA rhetoric, your point (A) is faulty logic.
If Piracy does in fact have a negative impact at the box office, this eats into the studios profits. Eventually they are going to want to start making movies cheaper to offset this. One way to do this is to start paying cast and crew less money, or simply cut corners by hiring less crew members.
While I understand that my scenario isn't the only way this can play out, it is one possible way, and is clearly what workers in the movie industry are worried about.
I'm not saying that projector bulb prices aren't inflated, but they are certainly a LONG way from your floor lamp analogy.
So you only need to project 16 colors, do you really thing there is ANY market for a projector like that? Generally speaking a projector is going to cost at least $1000 or so, why would you spend that kind of money and put a cheap ass bulb in it that can't produce a good image?
I never said the world was "married" to 6500k, only that is the video standard and most projectors at least try to offer something reasonably close to that.
I've heard a GE engineer say that their projector bulbs cost about 10 times as much to produce than a regular lamp of the same wattage. Add this to the fact they they are shipped in a MUCH lower volume and walla, high price.
If you want a crappy bulb for your projector, fine, but most of us want to get the best image possible. I'd be ecstatic if bulb prices came down significantly, but I won't pretend that its a simple issue where the manufacturer is simply ripping us off.
My living room needs a lot of brightness and lighting. My car needs a lot of brightness and lighting. But I don't pay $200/bulb to keep either supplied. As I said, I think a significant portion of the cost is that they need a small package. I can buy a 500Watt halogen for my floor standing torch lamp for what...$20? That's got to be just about as bright as whatever's in your average consumer projector. So why does it cost $20 in a lamp and $200 in a projector. The bulb isn't doing anything technological! It's a light source, period.
This is so completely uninformed it is reduculous. Its clear you have not actually researched the issue. There is a HUGE difference between your $20 floor lamp bulb and a projector bulb. There is quite a bit of engineering that goes into making projector bulbs because thay need a very specific spectra of output. Your floor lamp does not put out anything close to 6500k light (video standard). Put your lamp bulb in a projector and you will have a projector that will be impossible to calibrate to any sort of decent color balance.
Well there aren't any native 1920x1080 projectors out there right now for under $20k, so 720p is the only option (other than used CRT) right now.
As another poster mentioned, the best place to go is the AVSForum. However, here is a quick breakdown of your options.
I would not suggest rolling a DIY projector, you will get much higher quality image from a basic manufactured unit. Entry level is around $1000 at the moment, a couple thousand for a native HD unit. (You can find cheaper stuff in the used market).
There are four primary technologies being used in frong projecttion right now:
LCD - Cheap, but generally considered a good value. Lower contrast and more screendoor than other technologies, but can still look pretty good. You can get a nice 1280x720 (720p) LCD projector for about $2000. Check out the Panasonic AE500 or the Sanyo Z2. Sony's HS20 is also nice for a little more money. Lesser expensive LCDs are available but generally throw relatively poor images (IMHO).
DLP - Very popular right now. Generally provides a better picture than LCD. Limited to 720p for now. A true 16x9 HD DLP projector will run you more than an LCD. Probably looking at at around $4000 minimum to over $10000. The BenQ 8700 is a GREAT value at the moment. Lower priced DLPs are also available, all the way to $999 for the InFocus X1. These lower priced DLPs are generally not high-def and most 4x3, instead of 16x9. Use of an anamorphic lense can turn them into native 16x9 projectors, but adds cost and complexity.
DLPs have the best contrast of current consumer projectors by a good margin. One thing to be carful of is that a some of people see rainbows or get headaches when watching DLPs. This is less of an issue on newer models with a faster color wheel, but may be an issue on less expensive models. Check out brands like BenQ, InFocus, NEC, Marantz, Dwin, Sim2 for good DLP projectors.
LCOS - This is the technology of choice for JVC. It has lower contrast than DLP but throws a smoother image due to its higher fill-factor. Its often described as very "film-like". Can support higher resolutions than DLP for now. A lot of the current LCOS projectors are large and not very user friendly. There are some more players entering the LCOS market, including Sony, with a native 1080p device, but it quite expensive. I'm not quite as up-to-date on LCOS projectors as DLP and LCD, but its worth a look.
CRT - The grandaddy of projection. CRT can throw a wonderful image, altough digitals are catching up quickly. Manufacturers aren't really making them anymore so most are found in the used market. They are big, HEAVY, and require lot s of maintenence. They are also generally dimmer than digitals.
Exactly! Most of the comments in this thread talk about teaching methods, good/bad teachers, etc. Although good teachers a great, this ignores what I think is the fundamental problem -
It is the student's responsibility to learn.
Kids do not understand that they have to take responsibility for thier own education. If they don't understand something they blame the teacher, instead of taking the time to learn it. I know several teenage girls that think they are not very good at math. They get C's in high school level math classes and say its just because they aren't good at it. If they took half the time studying for math as they do shopping for clothes, they would understand the concepts ten times better and have As.
I guess I know what my Gentoo box is going to be doing for the next two weeks. ;)
No link in the article. Here is the press release: NASA Press Release
Religion and extra-terrestrial life are not mutually exclusive. There is nothing fundamental about most religions that says that only earth can harbor life. I know plenty of people that are quite religious that believe it is likely that there is life elsewhere in the universe.
If it had been a stand-alone film then it's highly doubtful that it would have been so successful at gaining the votes of the Academy's members.
That's a meaningless statement. It wasn't a standalone film. If it was it would have been made entirely differently. Return of the King in its current form simply would never exist without FOTR & TTT, so what's the point in creating such hypotheticals? Its not meant to be a standalone film, why would you treat it line one?
For under $1000 dollars, most camcorders from major brands are pretty similar to each other in functionality. Some might have cool little features that others don't, but if you are just doing point-and-shoot type stuff it doesn't make too much difference. I think miniDV is still the best bet for PQ/price. I wouldn't think about going to a tapeless model yet. Home videos are something you keep for a LONG time. You may be watching these 20 or more down the road and tape is still the best archival format. Just pick something out that has the features you want. The tiny ones that will fit in the palm of your hand will be towards the top of your price range, but they aren't funtionally much different than the less expensive larger ones. CNET has a camcorder review section with lots of user comments. That might be a good place to start.
The article was slashdotted, heres my personal guide:
CRT - Still probably capable of the best picture for now (especially at the high end, think G90). Requires much more maintenance than digital technlogies (convergence, etc.). Essentially infinite on/off contrast, not quite as good ANSI contrast. No screendoor. High end guns capable of fully resolving 1080p.
DLP - Best contrast numbers of the digital technologies. Consumer units limited to 720p for now. Screendoor is pretty limited. Some people may see rainbows on one chip devices due to color wheel (pretty limited on new HD2+ machines). Most machines not terribly bright when compared to LCD. Limited to projection devices.
LCD - Poor contrast, very hight black level. Most screendoor of the digitals. Can be in projection or panel configurations. Considerably less expensive than other digital techs. Scales to higher resolutions than DLP for now.
LCOS - Least screendoor of digital technologies. Often appears "smoothest" or most like a CRT to people. Contrast numbers not up to DLP's standards. Not a large number of LCOS unites on the market for now, but looks like more will be coming soon. Many see it as the ultimate sucessor to CRT rear-projection.
Plasma - Least bang for the buck of the digitals. Only a flat-panel technology, no projection. Reletively poor contrast numbers.