It doesn't have to be pixel-to-pixel, but it does need to be at LEAST that number of pixels to be truly HD.
I bought a 50" RPTV for $2400 about 3 years ago. I Believe that is "consumer pricing" for an HDTV, right? It has 1600 horizontal scanlines, meaning it can at least do 720p, and is not too far away from true 1080i resolution. (Toshiba 50H81.)
"The W4200HD has a native pixel resolution of 1024x768, and as such, isn't a true HD device, since it doesn't have enough pixels to draws [sic] a 1280x720 (720p) HDTV image."
Which means it also can't do 1080i (which requires 1920x1080, almost twice the horizontal resolution this TV is capable of).
What's horrible is that the guy who sold it was given the site as directed by the pervious owner's Will. He died and left it to this guy who sold it. Isn't that nice?
That is truly horrible.
You know, when I die, I think I will put a clause in my will that requires my next of kin to pay the estate taxes themselves, and LIVE in my house, not sell it. I mean, the thought of a next of kin selling something they don't want to maintain is just horrible.
I know a more efficient way: it's called "cycling".
That depends on your definition of "efficient."
I am in decent shape, and only rarely am I able to obtain a speed of 60MPH on my human-powered bicycle, and even then only for moments at a time. (Usually after colliding with a vehicle traveling at 60MPH.)
I applaud your pedantry, sir. Let us apply this to different areas.
BZZZT! The surface of your car cannot be damaged. Changed, yes, but not damaged. Unless you're suggesting that we need to get back to car body perfection.
Look, there are accidental collisions that have been going on for as long as cars have existed. Cars and trucks are CONSTANTLY reshaping the surface of other vehicles. THIS IS NOT DAMAGE. This is normal behavior for the ecosystem.
All the while, these people who make the key decisions are not held accountable for their actions.
Provide me some examples. Don't speak in generalities. All the executives from Enron that were involved are now either facing charges, facing sentencing, or facing steel bars.
What would you do if someone threatened to take away your ability to provide for your kids? Lets face it, these people are caught in an economical machine they just can't change.
You start looking for a new job in your spare time. Or you blow the whistle, in which case you have certain protections under the law to prevent you from being fired for blowing the whistle.
The truth is, capitolism doesn't work in favour of the base population. It's a system based on keeping the poor as poor as possible, and the rich as rich as possible, with a mid-point "hump" that's really hard to get past, even if you work your ass off.
Please, please... share your research on this matter. You do have research to prove this "fact," correct? Yeah, right.
Capitalism is not a zero-sum game. The rich do not need to keep poor people poor in order to stay rich. However, the poor people would like to have an excuse for being poor. Why not blame the rich? The truth is, if you're not lazy, if you apply yourself, if you work hard, or smart, or are lucky -- you can stop being poor.
But like you said, it may require that you "work your ass off," and many poor are too lazy to do that. That's why they are poor, in most cases.
But it's easier to just blame someone else instead of doing something about it. Rather than working hard, let's just switch over to socialism, so I can get me some of that free money.
The only thing about capitalism is that it doesn't suffer fools.
The government does after all consist of the people's elected representatives. Either the people are incredibly stupid, or the government isn't that bad.
When you only have shit to choose from, should you then feel really great about being led by a bunch of shit?
And the third idea: maybe those elected are elected by the tyranny of the majority? If a heavily Democratic state elects a Democrat to office whose platform is raising taxes on the rich and giving the money to the middle class and poor (i.e. wealth distribution, i.e. socialism), do you think the people earning all the money will be real happy with that government? After all, they were elected by "the people."
Republicans get mileage out of crying about it even when it doesn't materialize. When the fascists are on the march, their propaganda is always in order.
That's funny... how many times did I hear Democrats crying about "disenfranchisement" before any was even reported in the last election? And in most cases, they were wrong about it happening, or had absolutely no proof of it.
Both sides are equally "good" at creating fake distress.
I've never seen Google's site go down, but I have seen plenty of mirrors become unreachable, either due to network problems when you get redirected to an overseas mirror, or due to just general mirror suckiness.
The italian domain is awesome, I think it should be Google's primary domain. After all, when someone asks me about something, I tell them to google.it.
This is a standard liberal idea. Everything is relative. No one is truly a bad person, they just appear bad from one side. Maybe they are really good, you just have to get a different relative position, right?
Even GWBs staunchest political opponents -- those that have met with him or know him -- believe that he is a "good person." I have heard many state as much when pressed on this point. They may not like his approach to things. They may disagree with him on most politics. But none of his political opponents have called him "evil," nor any of his staff.
Now, you and many liberals that don't know him at all refer to him as evil.
Out of those two groups of people, which do you think has the better vantage point on Bush, relatively speaking?
But it's interesting that you bring up the part about the countries being run by BAD PEOPLE. Now I won't argue that the dictator of N.Korea is an asshole or not, I personally think that he is. But I will argue that the BAD PEOPLE defense is very relative.
Of course it is relative. Relative to most every other "leader" in the world, Kim Jong Il is a bad person. Glad to put it into context for you.
You can find a lot of people in the Mid East who think the exact same thing about the United States, and also believe that the United States is out to "GET" them, and to ruin there way of life.
How many of these people think this because of the propaganda they here from the mullahs and islamic extremists that are rampant in their countries? Or by their dictators in whose best interest it is if the people hate America?
It's that very thinking that causes terrorisim. "The United States is out to _get us_, so we have to go bomb them to stop them."
According to most of the islamic extremists, the reason they attack us is because they hate freedom, hate democracy, and want to spread militant Islamic government across the world. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has stated as much.
Now I don't want to say that I'm right and that they are wrong, I do want to say that there is a lot more to this then just your president pointing to a country on a map, and saying there evil, and everyone just believes it, and attacks.
Is Iran a free, democratic country? No.
Is N. Korea a free, democratic country? No.
Are they both run by people oppressing their citizens? Yes.
Are they both armed with nuclear weapons or working toward that goal? Yes.
If they were armed with nuclear weapons, would they pose a serious threat to their neighbors? Yes. Iran -- Israel. N. Korea -- S. Korea.
Would they both be interested in selling nuclear weapons to terrorist cells? Probably so.
Without intervention of some kind, will these countries become freer, safer, less of a threat to the free world as time goes on. Doubtful.
Thanks for your support of taking out the terrorist state of Israel and their WMDs.
Uh huh... were these the resolutions passed by all the anti-semites in the Arab countries? Just wondering. And what countries supported those resolutions?
You're absolutely right. It's sad that in order to prevent your country from being attacked, you have to be able to assure "MAD", Mutually Assured Destruction.
In all of the world, there are really only a few countries that have WMD. How is it then that all of those other countries are able to prevent themselves from being attacked?
I can see why every single country that poses a threat to the U.S. will try to arm themselves now.
Oh, here you admit it. Certain countries "pose a threat" to the US. And just why do Iran and N. Korea pose a threat to the US? You state this as if they are just your normal countries, ho-hum, we just pose a natural threat to the US. Wrong. These two countries are run by BAD PEOPLE. They dictate their countries and oppress their citizens, especially in the case of N. Korea.
"Their neighbours Iraq scrapped their WMD programmes and soon as they were suitably defenceless they were invaded. No state rogue or otherwise will now believe that complying with UN resolutions or appeasing a more powerful enemy will prevent attack. The USA's policy of 'Might is Right' is now to be cascaded throughout the world."
Ummm, except that they were in violation of UN sanctions, and had been in violation for over a decade. Even the UN does not dispute this. The only dispute was whether it was the right time to attack, or should further diplomacy be had.
If Iraq had not been in violation of UN sanctions, the coalition would not have been willing to mount the war.
Slashdot Mirror
- No ads.
- Google goodness and integration.
- Better search features and movie location.
It doesn't have to be pixel-to-pixel, but it does need to be at LEAST that number of pixels to be truly HD.
I bought a 50" RPTV for $2400 about 3 years ago. I Believe that is "consumer pricing" for an HDTV, right? It has 1600 horizontal scanlines, meaning it can at least do 720p, and is not too far away from true 1080i resolution. (Toshiba 50H81.)
I quote:
"The W4200HD has a native pixel resolution of 1024x768, and as such, isn't a true HD device, since it doesn't have enough pixels to draws [sic] a 1280x720 (720p) HDTV image."
Which means it also can't do 1080i (which requires 1920x1080, almost twice the horizontal resolution this TV is capable of).
Remember, the court appoints you an attorney for free ONLY in criminal matters. In civil court, you are on your own.
Simple solution. Kill the CEO of the company suing you.*
*I'm joking, please don't sue me... or I'll kill your CEO.
What's horrible is that the guy who sold it was given the site as directed by the pervious owner's Will. He died and left it to this guy who sold it. Isn't that nice?
That is truly horrible.
You know, when I die, I think I will put a clause in my will that requires my next of kin to pay the estate taxes themselves, and LIVE in my house, not sell it. I mean, the thought of a next of kin selling something they don't want to maintain is just horrible.
I know a more efficient way: it's called "cycling".
That depends on your definition of "efficient."
I am in decent shape, and only rarely am I able to obtain a speed of 60MPH on my human-powered bicycle, and even then only for moments at a time. (Usually after colliding with a vehicle traveling at 60MPH.)
Besides what is a French person doing complaining about things like this? The French are the biggest language snobs on the planet.
The French are the biggest language snobs on the planet.
Just so you know, I agree the earth is not really being damaged, atleast not in a negative sense. ;-)
I applaud your pedantry, sir. Let us apply this to different areas.
BZZZT! The surface of your car cannot be damaged. Changed, yes, but not damaged. Unless you're suggesting that we need to get back to car body perfection.
Look, there are accidental collisions that have been going on for as long as cars have existed. Cars and trucks are CONSTANTLY reshaping the surface of other vehicles. THIS IS NOT DAMAGE. This is normal behavior for the ecosystem.
All the while, these people who make the key decisions are not held accountable for their actions.
Provide me some examples. Don't speak in generalities. All the executives from Enron that were involved are now either facing charges, facing sentencing, or facing steel bars.
What would you do if someone threatened to take away your ability to provide for your kids? Lets face it, these people are caught in an economical machine they just can't change.
You start looking for a new job in your spare time. Or you blow the whistle, in which case you have certain protections under the law to prevent you from being fired for blowing the whistle.
The truth is, capitolism doesn't work in favour of the base population. It's a system based on keeping the poor as poor as possible, and the rich as rich as possible, with a mid-point "hump" that's really hard to get past, even if you work your ass off.
Please, please... share your research on this matter. You do have research to prove this "fact," correct? Yeah, right.
Capitalism is not a zero-sum game. The rich do not need to keep poor people poor in order to stay rich. However, the poor people would like to have an excuse for being poor. Why not blame the rich? The truth is, if you're not lazy, if you apply yourself, if you work hard, or smart, or are lucky -- you can stop being poor.
But like you said, it may require that you "work your ass off," and many poor are too lazy to do that. That's why they are poor, in most cases.
But it's easier to just blame someone else instead of doing something about it. Rather than working hard, let's just switch over to socialism, so I can get me some of that free money.
The only thing about capitalism is that it doesn't suffer fools.
The government does after all consist of the people's elected representatives. Either the people are incredibly stupid, or the government isn't that bad.
When you only have shit to choose from, should you then feel really great about being led by a bunch of shit?
And the third idea: maybe those elected are elected by the tyranny of the majority? If a heavily Democratic state elects a Democrat to office whose platform is raising taxes on the rich and giving the money to the middle class and poor (i.e. wealth distribution, i.e. socialism), do you think the people earning all the money will be real happy with that government? After all, they were elected by "the people."
Republicans get mileage out of crying about it even when it doesn't materialize. When the fascists are on the march, their propaganda is always in order.
That's funny... how many times did I hear Democrats crying about "disenfranchisement" before any was even reported in the last election? And in most cases, they were wrong about it happening, or had absolutely no proof of it.
Both sides are equally "good" at creating fake distress.
I've never seen Google's site go down, but I have seen plenty of mirrors become unreachable, either due to network problems when you get redirected to an overseas mirror, or due to just general mirror suckiness.
The italian domain is awesome, I think it should be Google's primary domain. After all, when someone asks me about something, I tell them to google.it.
What, trying to point out a case of irony -- which is not really irony -- in a thread that started out to do the same (correctly).
No. This is not irony, either, but it is amusing.
But all is relative
This is a standard liberal idea. Everything is relative. No one is truly a bad person, they just appear bad from one side. Maybe they are really good, you just have to get a different relative position, right?
Even GWBs staunchest political opponents -- those that have met with him or know him -- believe that he is a "good person." I have heard many state as much when pressed on this point. They may not like his approach to things. They may disagree with him on most politics. But none of his political opponents have called him "evil," nor any of his staff.
Now, you and many liberals that don't know him at all refer to him as evil.
Out of those two groups of people, which do you think has the better vantage point on Bush, relatively speaking?
But it's interesting that you bring up the part about the countries being run by BAD PEOPLE. Now I won't argue that the dictator of N.Korea is an asshole or not, I personally think that he is. But I will argue that the BAD PEOPLE defense is very relative.
Of course it is relative. Relative to most every other "leader" in the world, Kim Jong Il is a bad person. Glad to put it into context for you.
You can find a lot of people in the Mid East who think the exact same thing about the United States, and also believe that the United States is out to "GET" them, and to ruin there way of life.
How many of these people think this because of the propaganda they here from the mullahs and islamic extremists that are rampant in their countries? Or by their dictators in whose best interest it is if the people hate America?
It's that very thinking that causes terrorisim. "The United States is out to _get us_, so we have to go bomb them to stop them."
According to most of the islamic extremists, the reason they attack us is because they hate freedom, hate democracy, and want to spread militant Islamic government across the world. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has stated as much.
Now I don't want to say that I'm right and that they are wrong, I do want to say that there is a lot more to this then just your president pointing to a country on a map, and saying there evil, and everyone just believes it, and attacks.
Is Iran a free, democratic country? No.
Is N. Korea a free, democratic country? No.
Are they both run by people oppressing their citizens? Yes.
Are they both armed with nuclear weapons or working toward that goal? Yes.
If they were armed with nuclear weapons, would they pose a serious threat to their neighbors? Yes. Iran -- Israel. N. Korea -- S. Korea.
Would they both be interested in selling nuclear weapons to terrorist cells? Probably so.
Without intervention of some kind, will these countries become freer, safer, less of a threat to the free world as time goes on. Doubtful.
That "baddies" and "goodies" speech is a little braindead, don't you think? Real life is not like super-hero comics.
Are you saying in real life there are not bad people and good people?
Are you saying Kim Jong Il is not a bad person?
Feel free to ignore my point and focus on the semantics of a word I used. Here, I will rephrase my sentence to appease you:
"If Iraq had not been in violation of UN sanctions, the United States and Britain would not have been willing to mount the war."
Thanks for your support of taking out the terrorist state of Israel and their WMDs.
Uh huh... were these the resolutions passed by all the anti-semites in the Arab countries? Just wondering. And what countries supported those resolutions?
You're absolutely right. It's sad that in order to prevent your country from being attacked, you have to be able to assure "MAD", Mutually Assured Destruction.
In all of the world, there are really only a few countries that have WMD. How is it then that all of those other countries are able to prevent themselves from being attacked?
I can see why every single country that poses a threat to the U.S. will try to arm themselves now.
Oh, here you admit it. Certain countries "pose a threat" to the US. And just why do Iran and N. Korea pose a threat to the US? You state this as if they are just your normal countries, ho-hum, we just pose a natural threat to the US. Wrong. These two countries are run by BAD PEOPLE. They dictate their countries and oppress their citizens, especially in the case of N. Korea.
"Their neighbours Iraq scrapped their WMD programmes and soon as they were suitably defenceless they were invaded. No state rogue or otherwise will now believe that complying with UN resolutions or appeasing a more powerful enemy will prevent attack. The USA's policy of 'Might is Right' is now to be cascaded throughout the world."
Ummm, except that they were in violation of UN sanctions, and had been in violation for over a decade. Even the UN does not dispute this. The only dispute was whether it was the right time to attack, or should further diplomacy be had.
If Iraq had not been in violation of UN sanctions, the coalition would not have been willing to mount the war.
The speed of light is 1.5 million miles an hour!
You get to play Oregon Trail?
I have a 4-bit picture of a trail in Oregon, and I have to imagine myself walking it.
I was just made redundant at work yesterday. (The company closed - everyone was let go) Time to stop posting
Strange that you stopped goofing off AFTER you were fired.