Why should (most)people care about plastic discs anymore?
Bandwidth?
I don't have HDDVD or Blu-ray. Every HD source I've seen so far is seriously over-quantized. Cable, satellite, downloads (legal and otherwise) all look like crap (in ascending order of crapitude).
It seems to me that the powers that be decided that more lines means more room for loss. HD in practice seems to be mostly a wash.
I've got an ATSC tuner coming in tomorrow. Hopefully that means Lost and Heroes in actual HD.
It appears that over-the-air and on little plastic discs are the only places to get "HD" with, you know, high definition. That's why I care.
You took my question too personally. I'm not saying you're pushing anything. The question was: "Is it equally despicable when people use a tragedy like this to push restrictions on the possession of firearms?" I'm asking for your opinion, not making an accusation.
I used to work for Dell major accounts desktop support. One of the best laughs I've ever had was when someone called in from IOmega for a replacement Zip drive. "The one I have just goes click, click, click."
So the kind of laws that you seem to support stripped 33 people of their right to defend themselves, ending in their deaths, but the grandparent is the despicable one?
Is it equally despicable when people use a tragedy like this to push restrictions on the possession of firearms?
There are people who I would generally trust to be around while they carry weapons, but I would not extend that trust of judgement [sic] to more than about 5% of the general population. Most of the rest are too damned stupid or impulsive.
Given your low opinion of your fellow man, I suppose you are against democracy as well.
Once again, surface area is only relevant when it is at the normal to the direction that the light travels. Period. Said another way, you can't exceed 100% efficiency.
That could get rather toasty.
The area wouldn't get any warmer than if some other equally light absorbent material was there.
Not a helpful answer. Merriam-Webster defines "bulk" (in part), "1 a : spatial dimension [. ..] synonyms [. ..] VOLUME" Does this not seem to conflict with "thin" to you?
My point about area is that a fixed amount of Solar energy strikes a given surface on the Earth in a given unit time. A panel that covers a given area can never "gather" more energy than that, no matter how whiz-bang nano-fractal the surface is.
I'm not convinced by your argument that most of the light is reflected form PVs, and these "towers" give a second chance to collect it. I strongly suspect that most of the inefficiency of PVs comes from light being converted to heat instead of current, and current lost to resistance. (Granted that I don't have numbers in front of me.)
Traditional solar panels are often flat and bulky. The new design features an array of nano-towers - like microscopic blades of grass - that add surface area and trap more sunlight.
I'm no Scientist, but that whole paragraph reeks to me. What does "flat and bulky" mean? What does "trap" "sunlight" mean? How can the surface area of the panel being greater than the area covered by the panel help? How do "nano-towers", which are presumably structures that extend toward the light, help? (Given that they'd be more or less parallel to the direction of the photon's travel.)
A bunch of my friends love the film "Snatch", but I strongly disliked it. I think that one is a matter of being very close to being on my frequency, but the narrow miss really turned me off.
To this day you can catch me calling out, "Come find me, Gilbert!" from time to time.:-)
I love all of Kevin Smith's stuff. His concert films are really funny. "Amy" is my favorite film of his, but "Clerks II" has really grown on me. Captures some of the magic of both "Clerks" and of "Amy". Other favorites include "The Big Lebowski", "Donnie Darko", and lots of usual suspects like "The Matrix", "The Empire Strikes Back", and the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I like some of Tarantino's stuff. "M*A*S*H" is really good.
I really liked the Sci-Fi channel's "Dune". The effects were a little cheesy, and the acting was . . . mixed, but they really made a good go at doing the source material justice.
I generally dislike French cinema, but I'll check those out. I'll need to check out "El Mariachi" as well.
"Good" is absolutely subjective. By my personal (and only partially examined) metrics, there are many "good" (even "very good" and possibly "great") movies that are quite popular. "Braveheart" springs to mind. It's not my favorite movie, that's a tough call between "Chasing Amy" and "Fight Club", but in a sense it's the most "perfect" movie I've seen.
A more cynical view would be that character development is cheaper than action on a per-minute basis. A TV show that has to fill twenty-odd forty minute slots in a year must spend time with the characters to make budget.
Additionally, the survival of a TV show requires repeat business on a scale of weeks. Character is the only consistent way to archive this. (I think Heroes is doing a terrific job of leveraging character and plot to keep me tuning in.)
The conventional wisdom is that Hollywood sucks and anything would be better. I think what gets lost is that making a decent movie is tremendously difficult. It requires a lot of highly skilled and experienced people. Making a great movie takes that same stuff, only more, plus a lot of luck.
Hollywood movies, for all their flaws, usually get most of the . . . technical stuff right. That's a huge plus.
Beyond that "the Hollywood machine" does a vast amount of work vetting material. I'm sure some profound art is lost in this process, but it really does keep the self-indulgent pap to a minimum.
The indie approach is everyone and their dog makes a movie, and the cream rises to the top. The Hollywood system aims to never shoot the crud, and just shoot the 10% that might be worthwhile. I think that this creates a (comparatively high) floor on the quality of Hollywood movies, but does lower the ceiling on just how good they can be a bit.
That's why "all the really good ideas come from outsiders".
Where I work the only contractors are in temporary positions. (I.e. QA Engineers working on a big push to get a product out the door.) If they were hired they'd just be laid off in a few months.
We just lost our receptionist, and I think we're using temps 'till we find a keeper.
I'm no expert, but I just bought a 1080p TV, and all my research indicates that a 1080p (60Hz) signal exceeds the (specified) bandwidth limitations of component.
Why doesn't Dell [. ..] set up a completely autonomous division, dedicated solely to meeting the demand for such systems - one that is not obliged to follow any of Dell's traditional practices.
This would no longer be "Dell" in any significant way. It'd be a beige-box vendor specializing in Linux systems. Doesn't that exist? What problem does that solve for Dell? What problem does that solve for Dell's customers?
Slashdot Mirror
Bandwidth?
I don't have HDDVD or Blu-ray. Every HD source I've seen so far is seriously over-quantized. Cable, satellite, downloads (legal and otherwise) all look like crap (in ascending order of crapitude).
It seems to me that the powers that be decided that more lines means more room for loss. HD in practice seems to be mostly a wash.
I've got an ATSC tuner coming in tomorrow. Hopefully that means Lost and Heroes in actual HD.
It appears that over-the-air and on little plastic discs are the only places to get "HD" with, you know, high definition. That's why I care.
-Peter
I think that's all perfectly fair.
-Peter
I was actually defending the pushing of agendas. I'm sorry that I failed to communicate.
-Peter
You took my question too personally. I'm not saying you're pushing anything. The question was: "Is it equally despicable when people use a tragedy like this to push restrictions on the possession of firearms?" I'm asking for your opinion, not making an accusation.
By your standards is Sarah Brady sick?
-Peter
I used to work for Dell major accounts desktop support. One of the best laughs I've ever had was when someone called in from IOmega for a replacement Zip drive. "The one I have just goes click, click, click."
I was very grateful for the mute button that day.
-Peter
So the kind of laws that you seem to support stripped 33 people of their right to defend themselves, ending in their deaths, but the grandparent is the despicable one?
Is it equally despicable when people use a tragedy like this to push restrictions on the possession of firearms?
-Peter
Given your low opinion of your fellow man, I suppose you are against democracy as well.
-Peter
Once again, surface area is only relevant when it is at the normal to the direction that the light travels. Period. Said another way, you can't exceed 100% efficiency.
The area wouldn't get any warmer than if some other equally light absorbent material was there.
-Peter
Not a helpful answer. Merriam-Webster defines "bulk" (in part), "1 a : spatial dimension [. .
My point about area is that a fixed amount of Solar energy strikes a given surface on the Earth in a given unit time. A panel that covers a given area can never "gather" more energy than that, no matter how whiz-bang nano-fractal the surface is.
I'm not convinced by your argument that most of the light is reflected form PVs, and these "towers" give a second chance to collect it. I strongly suspect that most of the inefficiency of PVs comes from light being converted to heat instead of current, and current lost to resistance. (Granted that I don't have numbers in front of me.)
-Peter
I'm no Scientist, but that whole paragraph reeks to me. What does "flat and bulky" mean? What does "trap" "sunlight" mean? How can the surface area of the panel being greater than the area covered by the panel help? How do "nano-towers", which are presumably structures that extend toward the light, help? (Given that they'd be more or less parallel to the direction of the photon's travel.)
-Peter
A bunch of my friends love the film "Snatch", but I strongly disliked it. I think that one is a matter of being very close to being on my frequency, but the narrow miss really turned me off.
:-)
To this day you can catch me calling out, "Come find me, Gilbert!" from time to time.
I love all of Kevin Smith's stuff. His concert films are really funny. "Amy" is my favorite film of his, but "Clerks II" has really grown on me. Captures some of the magic of both "Clerks" and of "Amy". Other favorites include "The Big Lebowski", "Donnie Darko", and lots of usual suspects like "The Matrix", "The Empire Strikes Back", and the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I like some of Tarantino's stuff. "M*A*S*H" is really good.
I really liked the Sci-Fi channel's "Dune". The effects were a little cheesy, and the acting was . . . mixed, but they really made a good go at doing the source material justice.
I generally dislike French cinema, but I'll check those out. I'll need to check out "El Mariachi" as well.
Oh, I was Walter Sobchak last Halloween.
-Peter
"Good" is absolutely subjective. By my personal (and only partially examined) metrics, there are many "good" (even "very good" and possibly "great") movies that are quite popular. "Braveheart" springs to mind. It's not my favorite movie, that's a tough call between "Chasing Amy" and "Fight Club", but in a sense it's the most "perfect" movie I've seen.
-Peter
A more cynical view would be that character development is cheaper than action on a per-minute basis. A TV show that has to fill twenty-odd forty minute slots in a year must spend time with the characters to make budget.
Additionally, the survival of a TV show requires repeat business on a scale of weeks. Character is the only consistent way to archive this. (I think Heroes is doing a terrific job of leveraging character and plot to keep me tuning in.)
-Peter
Well said.
The conventional wisdom is that Hollywood sucks and anything would be better. I think what gets lost is that making a decent movie is tremendously difficult. It requires a lot of highly skilled and experienced people. Making a great movie takes that same stuff, only more, plus a lot of luck.
Hollywood movies, for all their flaws, usually get most of the . . . technical stuff right. That's a huge plus.
Beyond that "the Hollywood machine" does a vast amount of work vetting material. I'm sure some profound art is lost in this process, but it really does keep the self-indulgent pap to a minimum.
The indie approach is everyone and their dog makes a movie, and the cream rises to the top. The Hollywood system aims to never shoot the crud, and just shoot the 10% that might be worthwhile. I think that this creates a (comparatively high) floor on the quality of Hollywood movies, but does lower the ceiling on just how good they can be a bit.
That's why "all the really good ideas come from outsiders".
-Peter
No problem. Move to the Southern hemisphere.
-Peter
Both examples illuminate the same problem: The government has too freakin' much power.
-Peter
The article you link to doesn't mention the powerful contraceptive effect of these glasses.
-Peter
I don't think so, but it might allow you to show people how things look to you.
-Peter
Where I work the only contractors are in temporary positions. (I.e. QA Engineers working on a big push to get a product out the door.) If they were hired they'd just be laid off in a few months.
We just lost our receptionist, and I think we're using temps 'till we find a keeper.
But all in all, I'd say it DOES still exist.
-Peter
I think they also own ABC.
-Peter
I'm no expert, but I just bought a 1080p TV, and all my research indicates that a 1080p (60Hz) signal exceeds the (specified) bandwidth limitations of component.
-Peter
You'd also have to be on a frictionless surface . . . which would make getting up to speed (and steering) a real bitch.
-Peter
"IPTV" usually means an MPEG transport stream over IP.
-Peter
"An Evening with Kevin Smith" was WAY funnier.
-Peter
This would no longer be "Dell" in any significant way. It'd be a beige-box vendor specializing in Linux systems. Doesn't that exist? What problem does that solve for Dell? What problem does that solve for Dell's customers?
-Peter