They sell standalone DVD players capable of playing DivX, Mp4, Mp3, Jpg, Photo CD, etc etc for about $90 (incl. delivery) here in Israel. These are Chinese players pretending to be German, but they do the job. Please, find something better to do with your $249.
Annoyingly, so do the emails themselves. For users of MS Outlook [Express] - the vast majority of email users - the only way to find out where a link leads to is by either clicking it or going through many unfriendly hoops (properties > view source, look through the html, etc etc).
Actually you could get *limited* colors at 320x200. I forget what the term for it was
Yes. It was called 'artifacting', and occurred when using high resolution monochrome modes. It looked terrible, different computer models and different TV's produced different colors, and you were still stuck with 160 pixels of resolution anyway because you had to turn on every other pixel to get a certain color (an ugly khaki green or, alternatively, a shocking sky blue. or at least that's what it looked like on *my* system, depending on whether you used even or odd pixels).
This mode wasn't available for the 2600 though, so not really on topic.
Oh, and it's De Re Atari, reproduced in full for your pleasure.
Slashdot is like Playboy, everyone skips the articles and goes straight for the juicy stuff.
- 320x240 pixel or 76800 pixels. Let's say every one of these pixels has 2 bits...
320 pixels width? Area-drawing commands? You did read the article, right? Sheesh.
The Atari 2600 does not have a display buffer! Everything is generated on-the-fly, as in, while the TV raster scanner is doing its thing. It's also apparently impossible to get anything better than 40 pixels of resolution for the "playfield" graphics (as opposed to the sprites which are finer resolution).
Where did your "320" value for horizontal resolution come from? Even the Atari 800, which was light years ahead of the 2600, could only do 160 pixels across in color.
Slashdot is like Playboy, everyone skips the articles and goes straight for the juicy stuff.
What are you talking about? HonestReporting doesn't report news, it only counters what the news agencies report when it considers that report to be biased against Israel. Of COURSE the retort will be pro-Israel - it's only there to counter a balatant pro-Palestinian report - but "incredibly"?
Please cite an example of something that is "incredible", I'd like to hear it.
Please read
this. No, really. Read it. Then tell me, with a straight face, that AP and Reuters are good, honest news reporters who merely tell the truth (that Israel is bad at everything it does, etc etc).
A news agency that describes a terrorist bombing in an Israeli nightclub under the headline "Bomb Mars Historic Day For Palestinians" is no agency I am going to trust. Neither should you.
Well, apparently most of the links offered by the other replies to this are from pro-Palestinian sources. Here's an interesting read, with full references, that debunks much of the Palestinian propaganda that is being fed by AP, Reuters, etc.
I admit that these are Jewish sites and pro-Israel. They are, however, as close as I've seen to being objective and sticking to historical facts. (I am Jewish and Israeli.)
And for up-to-the-minute information on the latest news, see HonestReporting. Their newsletter offers some fascinating insight on Mideast events and how they are portrayed in the media, most often biased in favor of the Palestinians.
*sigh*.. Can the name "Israel" ever be mentioned here without waking all the bigots and spurring a political debate? This doesn't happen if the country mentioned is, say, China.
What does US foreign military aid have anything to do with this? Lenslet is a privately held company and has nothing to do with US funds.
But since the subject was raised.. Ahh, WRMEA. A website dedicated to "balanced and accurate information concerning U.S. relations with Middle Eastern states". Funny how their home page has a live counter (!) of dollars given to Israel, but no corresponding counter showing how many dollars are given to Egypt, Jordan, or whatever. And they do get a lot of money. They also don't mention that about 3/4 of the money Israel gets can only be spent in the US - which means the money goes right back to where it came from, creating jobs for Americans.
Here is a link that presents the Israeli side of things. Actually I think that whole site is a worthwhile read, if you're curious to hear the Israeli side of the conflict.
Slashdot Mirror
1. Get an nVidia GeForce card for your PC, not necessarily the flashiest.
2. Set it to output NTSC/M.
3. Set resolution to 720x480x32bit. (if you use windows it'll be under "list all modes", you can double click to set it.)
4. Set flicker filter to 'none', overscan to maximum, refresh at 60hz.
5. ????
6. etc.
If you're not using Windows, may the mighty Tux help you my friend.
phozz
phozz
-phozz
-phozz
-phozz
Yes. It was called 'artifacting', and occurred when using high resolution monochrome modes. It looked terrible, different computer models and different TV's produced different colors, and you were still stuck with 160 pixels of resolution anyway because you had to turn on every other pixel to get a certain color (an ugly khaki green or, alternatively, a shocking sky blue. or at least that's what it looked like on *my* system, depending on whether you used even or odd pixels).
This mode wasn't available for the 2600 though, so not really on topic.
Oh, and it's De Re Atari, reproduced in full for your pleasure.
Slashdot is like Playboy, everyone skips the articles and goes straight for the juicy stuff.
320 pixels width? Area-drawing commands? You did read the article, right? Sheesh.
The Atari 2600 does not have a display buffer! Everything is generated on-the-fly, as in, while the TV raster scanner is doing its thing. It's also apparently impossible to get anything better than 40 pixels of resolution for the "playfield" graphics (as opposed to the sprites which are finer resolution).
Where did your "320" value for horizontal resolution come from? Even the Atari 800, which was light years ahead of the 2600, could only do 160 pixels across in color.
Slashdot is like Playboy, everyone skips the articles and goes straight for the juicy stuff.
"Current equipment on which the netwerks of most (A)DSL-providers are built"?
If you're serious about making an April Fool's joke, at least get it spelled right...
phozz
Level editors? Pah! You n00bs have it so easy these days...
phozz
Please cite an example of something that is "incredible", I'd like to hear it.
phozz
A news agency that describes a terrorist bombing in an Israeli nightclub under the headline "Bomb Mars Historic Day For Palestinians" is no agency I am going to trust. Neither should you.
phozz
I admit that these are Jewish sites and pro-Israel. They are, however, as close as I've seen to being objective and sticking to historical facts. (I am Jewish and Israeli.)
Myths & Facts Online - A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict
And for up-to-the-minute information on the latest news, see HonestReporting. Their newsletter offers some fascinating insight on Mideast events and how they are portrayed in the media, most often biased in favor of the Palestinians.
*sigh* .. Can the name "Israel" ever be mentioned here without waking all the bigots and spurring a political debate? This doesn't happen if the country mentioned is, say, China.
phozz
But since the subject was raised.. Ahh, WRMEA. A website dedicated to "balanced and accurate information concerning U.S. relations with Middle Eastern states". Funny how their home page has a live counter (!) of dollars given to Israel, but no corresponding counter showing how many dollars are given to Egypt, Jordan, or whatever. And they do get a lot of money. They also don't mention that about 3/4 of the money Israel gets can only be spent in the US - which means the money goes right back to where it came from, creating jobs for Americans. Here is a link that presents the Israeli side of things. Actually I think that whole site is a worthwhile read, if you're curious to hear the Israeli side of the conflict.