"The NTSC standard is not 60Hz refresh. A NTSC tv draws even lines first, then odd lines. Each one of these is called a 'field'. There are 60 fields per second, but they are put together to make a 'frame' There are 30 frames per second. (when they added in sound/colour in there, it got switched down to 29.997 or somethign stupid...bandwidth issues)"
I knew I was missing something else in there, that was it.
And for an example of crappy motion blur, play any of the GTA games with motion blur turned on.
Ok seeing as the last one was fairly poorly written (I was at work and was distracted halfway through. I must have got confused myself, hence the confusing layout).
I got PAL and NTSC back to front (I do that a lot), but that isn't particularly important to the story. The point is that your TV uses a frame rate of about 25-30 frames and a refresh rate of about 50-60Hz.
I never said you wouldn't notice 60Hz flicker, the whole post was in fact meant to indicate that the 60Hz refresh was the REASON you had the flicker.
The phrase: "If you have 30 frames per second and not notice a flicker, but as long as it remains at a constant 30 you will rarely notice. There will be no flickering either."
Should have read: "If you have 30 frames per second at a refresh rate where you will not notice a flicker, you will not notice that it is 30 frames either".
I would say that is probably where I was distracted too, as that paragraph certainly doesn't make a lot of sense. It looks like I stopped in the middle of a sentence then started it again.
You will notice that the significance 72Hz holds was explained here: '(I use 72Hz as last I read that was the minimum "healthy" refresh rate).'
I got that value from a PC magazine review on monitors a few years ago so it has probably changed (72Hz does work pretty well though).
The significance of the eye's sensitivity to luminance is that if the phosphors of the screen go completely dark in between refreshes, the eye will notice this, wheras if they are not allowed to go dark then it is less noticable.
I apologise for the appaling presentation of the post (quite possibly the worst writing I have done), although obviously somebody got *some* information out of it.
Refresh rate is the actual rate at which the screen refreshes. Frames per second is the number of frames that go into the framebuffer of your video card.
If you have 30 frames per second and not notice a flicker, but as long as it remains at a constant 30 you will rarely notice. There will be no flickering either.
If you have 60Hz refresh, you will notice that because that is the rate at which your eye sees the light of the phosphors turn on and off, and your eye can detect luminance more than any other portion of the picture signal. As long as the phosphors remain lit for long enough for your eye not to detect the flickering you will not notice.
With 30 frames per second and 72Hz, you don't see the flickering because the same frame is drawn to the screen multiple times regardless of framerate. If you have ever watched a PAL television, did you notice the motion stuttering? Most won't, and that runs at 30 frames per second. The refresh rate of PAL is 60Hz, so there is a noticable flicker (NTSC uses 50Hz at least in the US)
If you have 90 FPS at 72 Hz, you will not see more than 72 of those frames. The screen is not drawn that fast. (I use 72Hz as last I read that was the minimum "healthy" refresh rate). The real reason you notice the difference between 60fps and 90fps in quake is that it is likely only an average, and what you are actually getting is 20 frames sometimes, and 60 at others. Higher average means that most of the time you have a higher refresh rate.
Yes I like the idea of honeynets. As long as they don't snag unsuspecting people they are a suitably evil and nasty way to stop virii:P Unfortunately I think I remember hearing something about some stupid legislation that would make honeynets illegal in some places (some sort of legislation to stop DOS attacks or something).
"All real property vs intellectual property ideals aside, that's like blaming Ford that your stolen car can't be serviced."
A stolen car which poses a danger to legitimate road users will normally be removed from the roads fairly quickly if it is really causing a problem, thus removing any threat an unroadworthy stolen car can pose to other road users and, importantly, in a way which does not disadvantage legitimate road users.
A pirate copy of XP will be used regardless of it being infected by many virii (Sasser excluded seeing as it shuts down most infected PCs:P) causing harm to other legitimate users of networks. In many cases this means that the only way to stop infected PCs becoming a problem is to do something similar to the approach blocking all ICMP to stop Nachi. This blocks legitimate ICMP as well, thus disadvantaging legitimate network users.
Eventually a there will probably be at least one flaw affecting each of the most popular ports. Blocking these would render the internet effectively useless, so unless another better method can be found, we have the choice of either blocking EVERY access to potentially vulnerable (ALL) services, or we allow infected PC's to remain, putting an unnecessary load on networks worldwide and eventually most likely destroying said networks.
"Linux users need to give up their technology that doesn't work correctly and use that which does."
But it does work correctly. The technology for playing DVD in linux does indeed play DVD in linux, just the DMCA reckons that we aren't allowed to use it.
"An analogy might be that your not allowed to build your own car and drive it on public roads."
Wouldn't that be legal as long as it passed the roadworthy examination (e.g. was safe to use).
"Notice nobody mentions the artists--it's all RIAA"
Are the artists even getting any of the cash from the lawsuits. If they are, it is probably about as insignificant as the cut of their CD sales that they actually receive. There are some artists who believe that the RIAA are the biggest pirates of all, as they take the artists music without paying for it (well they pay, but hardly pay what the music is actually worth) then they sell it to people for profit. There was an interesting article about it by courtney love a while ago ("Courtney love does the math" on salon.com I think).
Why is it always assumed that if it doesn't open Office documents PERFECTLY, it's incompatible, and if it isn't EXACTLY the same as office, it's not user friendly?
First of all, even if it doesn't open all Office documents perfectly, it does a pretty damn good job of it. At least it opens them in the first place. MS Office can't open OpenOffice files at all and there is no real excuse for it not to, the standard is out there for anyone to use. They are just too lazy/greedy to bother. Microsoft is all about "choice", as long as you choose them of course.
As for "User Friendliness", that is a very subjective thing. "User Difference" is more the case. I personally like the way OO works far better than the way MSO works, especially the equation editor and position of images/tables/whatever-else-you-might-embed. If you take someone who has used neither, it's a toss-up which one they would prefer. The only time MSO is guaranteed to be considered more "user friendly" is when the user has used MSO all their life, or it has a feature that OO doesn't.
That is the one thing that's missing. Visio is great. But you don't need Office to get Visio (doesn't even come as part of Office last I heard, unless it's one of the more expensive pro versions)
As for grammar check, how often do people ignore the MS grammar check anyway, and how often is it just plain wrong (or just way too picky).
I've never seen OO claim to "save" a document on a hard disk, then next time it is opened claim the document "cannot be found" even though I just double clicked on it. I have seen this at least 5 times with MS Office.
Each time, at least 2 hours worth of work was lost because of this (and yes, people *should* be backing up their work, but how many DO.)
"If I, as someone who's never had a relationship with DirecTV, built a device that picked up EM signals directed at me and translated them into something my TV could display, I don't see why anyone would think that (a) it's illegal or (b) I should stop."
And yet you probably wouldn't agree if someone received your IP packets (a private e-mail perhaps) which happened to go through their network interface/router/whatever and translated them into something they can view on their computer monitors. DirecTV is making a private broadcast. By decrypting their content, which was not intended for you, you are in essence invading their privacy.
I should introduce you to a guy I know who can't use the start menu at all and thinks that excel is what you use to write essays.
GUI is easy to use if you don't know what you want to do. CLI is easy to use if you know exactly what you want to do. And then there are the million grey areas in between, and the people who just can't use either for anything.
You don't need the full acrobat if you use openoffice on any of the OS'es. How many people use acrobat for anything other than the "print to pdf" function in word? The latest KDE even comes with its own print to PDF capability even if it isn't openoffice that you want it from.
It would be great if developers weren't able to install programs that required admin access on their workstations. It would encourage them to write software that doesn't need admin access to install.
Slashdot Mirror
It's also interesting to note that some of the digital television standards are using progressive scan.
"The NTSC standard is not 60Hz refresh. A NTSC tv draws even lines first, then odd lines. Each one of these is called a 'field'. There are 60 fields per second, but they are put together to make a 'frame' There are 30 frames per second. (when they added in sound/colour in there, it got switched down to 29.997 or somethign stupid...bandwidth issues)"
I knew I was missing something else in there, that was it.
And for an example of crappy motion blur, play any of the GTA games with motion blur turned on.
Ok seeing as the last one was fairly poorly written (I was at work and was distracted halfway through. I must have got confused myself, hence the confusing layout).
I got PAL and NTSC back to front (I do that a lot), but that isn't particularly important to the story. The point is that your TV uses a frame rate of about 25-30 frames and a refresh rate of about 50-60Hz.
I never said you wouldn't notice 60Hz flicker, the whole post was in fact meant to indicate that the 60Hz refresh was the REASON you had the flicker.
The phrase:
"If you have 30 frames per second and not notice a flicker, but as long as it remains at a constant 30 you will rarely notice. There will be no flickering either."
Should have read:
"If you have 30 frames per second at a refresh rate where you will not notice a flicker, you will not notice that it is 30 frames either".
I would say that is probably where I was distracted too, as that paragraph certainly doesn't make a lot of sense. It looks like I stopped in the middle of a sentence then started it again.
You will notice that the significance 72Hz holds was explained here:
'(I use 72Hz as last I read that was the minimum "healthy" refresh rate).'
I got that value from a PC magazine review on monitors a few years ago so it has probably changed (72Hz does work pretty well though).
The significance of the eye's sensitivity to luminance is that if the phosphors of the screen go completely dark in between refreshes, the eye will notice this, wheras if they are not allowed to go dark then it is less noticable.
I apologise for the appaling presentation of the post (quite possibly the worst writing I have done), although obviously somebody got *some* information out of it.
I wouldn't call a simple mixing up of the 2 "glaring" errors, it was an honest mistake. As for it getting confused, yeah I shoulda worded it better ;)
That's right, PAL is 50Hz (at least in AU, because it's taken from the power supply) and NTSC in the US is 60 Hz. Got the 2 mixed up.
FPS != Refresh rate
Refresh rate is the actual rate at which the screen refreshes. Frames per second is the number of frames that go into the framebuffer of your video card.
If you have 30 frames per second and not notice a flicker, but as long as it remains at a constant 30 you will rarely notice. There will be no flickering either.
If you have 60Hz refresh, you will notice that because that is the rate at which your eye sees the light of the phosphors turn on and off, and your eye can detect luminance more than any other portion of the picture signal. As long as the phosphors remain lit for long enough for your eye not to detect the flickering you will not notice.
With 30 frames per second and 72Hz, you don't see the flickering because the same frame is drawn to the screen multiple times regardless of framerate. If you have ever watched a PAL television, did you notice the motion stuttering? Most won't, and that runs at 30 frames per second. The refresh rate of PAL is 60Hz, so there is a noticable flicker (NTSC uses 50Hz at least in the US)
If you have 90 FPS at 72 Hz, you will not see more than 72 of those frames. The screen is not drawn that fast. (I use 72Hz as last I read that was the minimum "healthy" refresh rate). The real reason you notice the difference between 60fps and 90fps in quake is that it is likely only an average, and what you are actually getting is 20 frames sometimes, and 60 at others. Higher average means that most of the time you have a higher refresh rate.
Yes I like the idea of honeynets. As long as they don't snag unsuspecting people they are a suitably evil and nasty way to stop virii :P Unfortunately I think I remember hearing something about some stupid legislation that would make honeynets illegal in some places (some sort of legislation to stop DOS attacks or something).
"All real property vs intellectual property ideals aside, that's like blaming Ford that your stolen car can't be serviced."
:P) causing harm to other legitimate users of networks. In many cases this means that the only way to stop infected PCs becoming a problem is to do something similar to the approach blocking all ICMP to stop Nachi. This blocks legitimate ICMP as well, thus disadvantaging legitimate network users.
A stolen car which poses a danger to legitimate road users will normally be removed from the roads fairly quickly if it is really causing a problem, thus removing any threat an unroadworthy stolen car can pose to other road users and, importantly, in a way which does not disadvantage legitimate road users.
A pirate copy of XP will be used regardless of it being infected by many virii (Sasser excluded seeing as it shuts down most infected PCs
Eventually a there will probably be at least one flaw affecting each of the most popular ports. Blocking these would render the internet effectively useless, so unless another better method can be found, we have the choice of either blocking EVERY access to potentially vulnerable (ALL) services, or we allow infected PC's to remain, putting an unnecessary load on networks worldwide and eventually most likely destroying said networks.
"Linux users need to give up their technology that doesn't work correctly and use that which does." But it does work correctly. The technology for playing DVD in linux does indeed play DVD in linux, just the DMCA reckons that we aren't allowed to use it.
"An analogy might be that your not allowed to build your own car and drive it on public roads." Wouldn't that be legal as long as it passed the roadworthy examination (e.g. was safe to use).
You should patent that idea so you can stop them doing it later on :P
"Notice nobody mentions the artists--it's all RIAA"
Are the artists even getting any of the cash from the lawsuits. If they are, it is probably about as insignificant as the cut of their CD sales that they actually receive. There are some artists who believe that the RIAA are the biggest pirates of all, as they take the artists music without paying for it (well they pay, but hardly pay what the music is actually worth) then they sell it to people for profit. There was an interesting article about it by courtney love a while ago ("Courtney love does the math" on salon.com I think).
Why is it always assumed that if it doesn't open Office documents PERFECTLY, it's incompatible, and if it isn't EXACTLY the same as office, it's not user friendly?
First of all, even if it doesn't open all Office documents perfectly, it does a pretty damn good job of it. At least it opens them in the first place. MS Office can't open OpenOffice files at all and there is no real excuse for it not to, the standard is out there for anyone to use. They are just too lazy/greedy to bother. Microsoft is all about "choice", as long as you choose them of course.
As for "User Friendliness", that is a very subjective thing. "User Difference" is more the case. I personally like the way OO works far better than the way MSO works, especially the equation editor and position of images/tables/whatever-else-you-might-embed. If you take someone who has used neither, it's a toss-up which one they would prefer. The only time MSO is guaranteed to be considered more "user friendly" is when the user has used MSO all their life, or it has a feature that OO doesn't.
That is the one thing that's missing. Visio is great. But you don't need Office to get Visio (doesn't even come as part of Office last I heard, unless it's one of the more expensive pro versions) As for grammar check, how often do people ignore the MS grammar check anyway, and how often is it just plain wrong (or just way too picky).
I've never seen OO claim to "save" a document on a hard disk, then next time it is opened claim the document "cannot be found" even though I just double clicked on it. I have seen this at least 5 times with MS Office.
Each time, at least 2 hours worth of work was lost because of this (and yes, people *should* be backing up their work, but how many DO.)
"If I, as someone who's never had a relationship with DirecTV, built a device that picked up EM signals directed at me and translated them into something my TV could display, I don't see why anyone would think that (a) it's illegal or (b) I should stop."
And yet you probably wouldn't agree if someone received your IP packets (a private e-mail perhaps) which happened to go through their network interface/router/whatever and translated them into something they can view on their computer monitors. DirecTV is making a private broadcast. By decrypting their content, which was not intended for you, you are in essence invading their privacy.
The cable companies aren't broadcasting unencrypted, they are encrypting using the smart cards.
I should introduce you to a guy I know who can't use the start menu at all and thinks that excel is what you use to write essays.
GUI is easy to use if you don't know what you want to do. CLI is easy to use if you know exactly what you want to do. And then there are the million grey areas in between, and the people who just can't use either for anything.
You don't need the full acrobat if you use openoffice on any of the OS'es. How many people use acrobat for anything other than the "print to pdf" function in word? The latest KDE even comes with its own print to PDF capability even if it isn't openoffice that you want it from.
Hmm, perhaps you should have spent the 10 seconds to read the post, because it wasn't even talking about the X window system in the first place ;)
Acrobat has a linux version. There are also a number of open source PDF viewers.
They need them with all those sheep
Does the fact that the money is in the country really make all that much difference if all that money is in MS's bank account?
That's not always how your boss will see it :(
It would be great if developers weren't able to install programs that required admin access on their workstations. It would encourage them to write software that doesn't need admin access to install.