>no, in the US you get declared an "enemy combatant" and then you just disappear.
I don't like the current (soon to be outgoing) administration either, but distortions don't help anything. The Dept. of Homeland Security is not the Stasi, the CIA is not the KGB, and you cannot name one person who has been declared an "enemy combatant" and disappeared, except for those who were arrested on a battlefield where they could have been summarily executed instead. I don't approve of any of it, but distorting the truth doesn't help our opposition to the situation in reality.
>Most don't know that here in the US you are required to have a permit also
Fundamentally at odds with any authority by which such a permit could be denied, granted or even sought, is this:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I switched from Solaris to Linux, and then from Linux to MacOSX. That last switch was driven by the quality of the MacBook Pro, its power/portability ratio, and it power management. I considered several other notebooks, but each had some annoying factor that made it inferior as a Linux notebook. So I bought a MacBook Pro, and I run OSX on it. The last thing I want is anything that would require me to run Windows on it, VM or not, dual boot or not. I cannot even imagine what application that might be. If I did find such a thing, I would hope I could just use one of my Win2000 licenses under some VM or dual boot system.
As a criminal accusation against a person who holds one of the highest elected offices in government? Highly doubtful, but you seem to be hoping for it.
>Yeah, but given the amount of resources Google provides for its employees, it's safe to say that 50% of all power will go to catered meals, >jacuzzis, and vibrating beds for nap breaks on those difficult 6 and a half hour work days.
I think all those things are illegal in Oklahoma.
Please put me out of my misery if I ever become desperate enough, or greedy enough, to live in a place like Oklahoma.
It even makes working for Google seem a little less of a good thing, because there is always the chance you might get relocated to Oklahoma.
I wonder if people are aware that Oklahoma still practices strict alcohol prohibition?
>Because relatively few lights are equipped to change in response to stimuli? Most are simply set on timers.
In my town, every street with a speed limit over 35 MPH has a remote-activation system. It can be controlled from a central office, or from an individual vehicle. When activated, a strobe light comes on to show what direction the emergency vehicle is travelling, and all lights on the cross-direction go yellow-red and stay red, then the lights on the direction the emergency vehicle is travelling all go green and stay green.
Of course you are supposed to pull over when you see this, but the riceboys and the bikers take advantage of the opportunity to use the street as a dragstrip.
I just slow down for tailgaters. If the tailgater was a cop, I'd pull to the right and then slow down. If the cop kept tailgating I would pull over completely as though he had ordered me to. If instead of just passing by, he stopped to check me out, I'd explain that I assumed because he was tailing me so closely he meant to stop me. I'd be really straightforward and unpleasant but without implying that the tailgating was *wrong*, just that I took it as an authoritative act.
I have often gotten very far with police by affirming, as opposed to challenging their authority. At times, you can put an authority person into a complicated position by behaving as though you believe they have much more authority than they do -- for them, it becomes a challenge between asserting authority that they lack (which is a no-no for them), and admitting to you that their authority is limited.
On the other hand, the magic words have gotten action many times: "I realize you don't have the authority to tell that guy to move his car, but it sure is a nuisance that it's in the middle of the park", (and so on.)
But then, I have never had a police car tailgate me, unless it was moments before turning on the lights to pull me over for my expired plate.
In my town, at least on the major streets, emergency vehicles can reset the traffic lights. A couple of things happen when they call a code. Strobes start flashing on all the lights in the direction the emergency vehicle is travelling, and all of the lights on the crosswise direction start yellow, go to red and stay red for the duration of the code.
I live near several hospitals and I see this phenomenon routinely (with ambulances bringing in DUI carnage on weekends). I voted against the bond package that paid for the system, because it also included red light cameras and a street widening project that put an independent bookstore out of business:-(
Anyway if someone in an emergency vehicle in my town wants to run red lights, he just has to flip a switch and he has a drag strip.
And yes, there are plenty of morons who are hip to this and *do* literally drag race when they see the strobes come on. (Motorcycles, especially).
>Police frequently have to run red lights. Maybe they are responding to a call. Maybe they are pulling over a drunk driver who ran the light.
Well, then, they have a defense. So when the DA confronts the cop with a ticket, he can show in his log that it was in the course of duty.
I have a feeling that any DA who actually presses a moving violation charge against an on-duty cop in a marked car, has a little more inclination that he is dealing with a cop who is abusing authority, not someone who ran a red light in order to respond to an emergency. The redlight camera has a time stamp, and so do the dispatch radio transcripts, and these days I'll be the car itself has a record of when code lights were set.
If you want to be able to operate on your own authority at your own discretion without constant scrutiny -- DON'T become a cop.
>If you misjudge that and decide to go through (and you have NO idea how FAST the yellow light is going to turn RED) and have it turn RED right as >you enter, BAMB, you have a ticket.
If the light was yellow when you entered the intersection, it's not a violation. If you misjudged and thought the light would stay yellow long enough for you to enter the intersection, you committed a moving violation if you got it wrong. If you are going fast enough that you saw the green change to yellow but did not have time to stop, you were speeding, or the light was malfunctioning.
If your argument in court is going to be "I entered on the caution light", you had better hope the photo equipment does not have specific calibration to show that the light was red before you entered.
Why do you qualify it? Until someone comes forward with a lawful order, issued prior to the trip, that stipulates what she did was proscribed, there is no argument.
In order to make this case against Pelosi, three things are required:
1. State the case explicitly. What is it, precisely, that she is accused of doing? This information must be supported by evidence, such as testimony from eyewitnesses. If she visited some place that she was prohibited from going, please show us the order from the State Department indicating that. If she said something to someone which was forbidden on the basis of some compelling state interest, show us where this has been alleged in some lawful way, by someone with the authority to do so. Authority, under our system of government, does not take the form of "everything not expressly permitted, is forbidden." This is fundamental. State the case describing what the person is accused of doing, and show the evidence to support the accusation.
2. State the law that was broken. The only law that has been mentioned in the Pelosi visit to Syria, to my knowledge, is the Logan Act. If you have satisfied requirement #1, then you may have an argument in terms of the Logan Act's predicate of "authority." But there is more that must be done. You need to be prepared to explain to a Federal Grand Jury that you seek to press charges based on a law that has no judicial history whatsoever. You will be asking for the first indictment in history, using a law that has no case law history at all, and you want that first indictment to be against an elected official who holds the highest legislative office in government -- having authority co-equal to that of the President of the United States and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
3. Demonstrate that your evidence supports your conclusion without violating the Constitutional Rights of any individual, and without making any procedural errors. This may be difficult to do, as all arguments I have seen thus far, single out the current Speaker of the House individually, and as far as I can tell, accuse her of some crime while broad immunity is granted to all others who have done precisely the same thing. It may take a considerable amount of effort to make a criminal case against one individual who has done something that others do routinely, but without such criminal exposure.
So, are you just being cautious with your "almost certainly legal" remark? Because the "almost" aspect of that, might become a factor if the entire foundation of the rule of law in the US is set aside for this one argument. I'm going with "was absolutely, 100% not illegal," and I would go further, the very few lawful means of preventing the Speaker from doing what she did, would themselves have created a much more significant controversy than the one we are discussing. Can you imagine the outrage that would ensue if the President had ordered the State Department to revoke the passports of Members of Congress, including the Speaker of the House? How do you think it would go over if *only* the Democrats in Congress had their passports revoked?
Please realize that without some specific lawful order that existed prior to the Congressional Delegation to Syria, there can be no valid argument that a crime was committed.
Fortunately, it is not yet the law of the land that an action which might run counter to the personal opinions of the President is a crime of treason.
And that, when you get down to it, is the basic premise of the argument the right wing is trying to make against Madame Speaker.
>You mean like engaging in unauthorized diplomatic negotiations with a foreign power? That's treason.
Oops. Careful. Before accusing the Speaker of the House of a capital crime, you might want to be sure you are on a solid legal footing.
There has been a flurry lately, among people who have discovered the Logan Act -- a piece of legislation that has NEVER been used. And they give it a cursory reading, and accept when they are told that it applies in the case of Madame Speaker's recent trip to Syria. They completely miss the fact that the Logan Act, even if it were enforceable, and even if it were enforceable against a sitting Member of Congress, is predicated on "authority." The problem, that the Fox news people et al fail to mention, is that she had authority to do what she did, and furthermore, any restrictions on that authority would have to come from an Act of Congress in the first place.
Now, if you can show that Madame Speaker violated a LAWFUL ORDER, we can discuss the validity of that order, and if you can establish that the order was violated, then we can talk about authority, the Logan Act, and treason.
However, you are putting forth an idea that the President's word is law at all times. You are actually going much further -- you are suggesting that just because the President has an opinion, or even, something that a person in the media might assume that opinion would be, THAT OPINION becomes law.
And so, by some extension that I follow not at all, the Speaker of the House did something without authority. And ONLY the Speaker, as a member of a bipartisan delegation together with representatives of the State Department, did something wrong. And nobody seems to be able to articulate, in a manner that would be acceptable to bring a criminal charge, exactly what that wrong thing was. They certainly have not brought evidence of a crime to the table of anyone with any authority to prosecute such a crime.
All they have done is cause those people who already hate the Speaker, and presumably everyone who is not a member of the Bush party, to continue to hate them.
In other words, no net effect.
I would like to think they have educated themselves in the process, on a historical legal curiosity, but sadly, they have not.
Please, before you publicly accuse an elected official of a capital crime, do have your evidence in hand. Otherwise you are simply calling for an assassination; a serious crime.
>OK, here are the problems. How am I supposed to trust a website to be the site I am intending to go to when a) its not on a https site, and its >asking for my username/password, and I cannot verify via the certificate or anything that I did not type http://bankfoamerica.com/ >[bankfoamerica.com] by accident? b) how am I supposed to trust a website that is different almost every time I interface with it.
You are not supposed to! You should change banks. I would, (and have). Now I use a credit union whose IT is managed by a Math/CS professor who is well known in cryptography circles. I also use USAA, which I highly recommend to people who are eligible. (It bothers me that people leave the military and don't bother to get grandfathered into USAA; it's one of the best perks they offer.)
>In the end, they just said they were mandated by the federal government to do this. Does anyone know if this is true? What item in law mandates >this?
I doubt it is specific to that one item. My guess would be, Federal Law required them to seek and receive approval for their plans before they put an online banking system in place; then they contracted to have it built, and that was a project that lasted for years. In order to make the change you want, they would have to go through a long complex process. So instead, they need to get rid of YOU.
So, remember when Jerry Garcia bought the film rights to make Sirens of Titan? And remember when Jerry died before that project really got started? Kurt bought back the rights and the screenplay.
Perhaps those to whom the rights will now transfer, will not do to Kurt, as was done to Heinlein or Dick.
>If you do the math you come to the conclusion that the human eye can't distinguish between 720p and 1080p when viewing a 50" screen from > 8' away.
I often hear arguments against headroom that take the approach of claiming that some technology is at or beyond the limits of human perception. Most often, the argument is against the use of 24-bit dynamic range in digital audio, or against Nyquist frequencies above 18kHz or so.
Few of these arguments are made from the production side of things, though. They are usually from the point of view of the consumer as a leaf of the system. I suspect the argument against video resolution is similar.
Can you point to a properly conducted blind test that supports your premise, that viewers cannot distinguish between these? I can certainly accept that, just as I accept that a listener cannot discern dynamic or frequency content beyond certain limits. But on the production side of audio, especially in signal processing and synthesis, things aren't so simple. There are plenty of situations where wide dynamic range or very high frequency response are useful or even essential.
But here, we're only talking in terms of "watching TV." I don't really watch TV very much and don't have a dog in the fight. My interest in a big TV is primarily for use as a computer monitor -- and I'm a strictly 2-D desktop user, and need quality terminal windows. Good text rendering seems to be tougher than good game graphics. Oh well, I'm digressing.
I would like to see some blind study, though. I'm *sure* the person who *bought* the 50" 1080p thinks it's better; cognitive dissonance will see to that!
>I can almost hear the squeaking scientists running from the clouds of helium like a pack of chipmunks. Helium while a little dangerous >can be alot of fun too;)
The amount of helium in an MRI magnet, together with its location in a confined space, makes this no laughing matter.
Here's a fun experiment: You go in the server room while we lock the door from the outside and set off the halon system.
>.... What's with runnimg from the cloud of Helium
Think of it more in terms of running *toward* a source of breathable air. (Sucking He and N2O is all fun and games until you don't get to take a breath of air in between, and you drown -- if you're lucky.)
>...is that no-one, including the people who make the decision about phones on planes, wants to spend their next long-haul flight next to > someone yakking on their phone for the entire time.
Except of course for the business-class asshole who can afford to swipe the amex through the card reader on *their* phone and pay for the privilege of being an annoying loudmouth. They are perfectly happy then.
>1) Directional antenna used at the base station, optimized for coverage of people on the ground, thus poor signal for things above them, > probably getting worse with newer technologies and better antenna designs.
Design *for* it and charge a premium for in-flight roaming.
Slashdot Mirror
>no, in the US you get declared an "enemy combatant" and then you just disappear.
I don't like the current (soon to be outgoing) administration either, but distortions don't help anything. The Dept. of
Homeland Security is not the Stasi, the CIA is not the KGB, and you cannot name one person who has been declared an "enemy combatant" and disappeared, except for those who were arrested on a battlefield where they could have been summarily executed instead. I don't approve of any of it, but distorting the truth doesn't help our opposition to the situation in reality.
>Most don't know that here in the US you are required to have a permit also
Fundamentally at odds with any authority by which such a permit could be denied, granted or even sought, is this:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I switched from Solaris to Linux, and then from Linux to MacOSX. That last switch was driven by the quality of the MacBook Pro, its power/portability ratio, and it power management. I considered several other notebooks, but each had some annoying factor that made it inferior as a Linux notebook. So I bought a MacBook Pro, and I run OSX on it. The last thing I want is anything that would require me to run Windows on it, VM or not, dual boot or not. I cannot even imagine what application that might be. If I did find such a thing, I would hope I could just use one of my Win2000 licenses under some VM or dual boot system.
Do you have a more credible cite for this law? Burma did not call itself "Burma" in 1996.
>If you are a corporate customer, the price tag is nothing for a copy of Vista Business.
If I am a corporate customer, the last thing I want to hear from a vendor is that my money they want for their product is "nothing."
>As in, an archaic laws that might be used?
As a criminal accusation against a person who holds one of the highest elected offices in government?
Highly doubtful, but you seem to be hoping for it.
>(anything over 3.2% alcohal have to get from the liqour store).
And if you bring it with you from Texas you go to jail. Strict prohibition. BTDT. Never again.
>Somehow, I am willing to bet that you are NOT a lawyer and are probably not fully aware of ALL the precident setting laws that have been done.
I am not a lawyer but I have studied law and I have worked in the legal field.
I am absolutely certain that the first prosecution of the Logan Act will not be against the current Speaker of the House.
>Yeah, but given the amount of resources Google provides for its employees, it's safe to say that 50% of all power will go to catered meals,
>jacuzzis, and vibrating beds for nap breaks on those difficult 6 and a half hour work days.
I think all those things are illegal in Oklahoma.
Please put me out of my misery if I ever become desperate enough, or greedy enough, to live in a place like Oklahoma.
It even makes working for Google seem a little less of a good thing, because there is always the chance you might get relocated to Oklahoma.
I wonder if people are aware that Oklahoma still practices strict alcohol prohibition?
>Because relatively few lights are equipped to change in response to stimuli? Most are simply set on timers.
In my town, every street with a speed limit over 35 MPH has a remote-activation system. It can be controlled from a central office, or from an individual vehicle. When activated, a strobe light comes on to show what direction the emergency vehicle is travelling, and all lights on the cross-direction go yellow-red and stay red, then the lights on the direction the emergency vehicle is travelling all go green and stay green.
Of course you are supposed to pull over when you see this, but the riceboys and the bikers take advantage of the opportunity to use the street as a dragstrip.
I just slow down for tailgaters. If the tailgater was a cop, I'd pull to the right and then slow down. If the cop kept tailgating I would pull over completely as though he had ordered me to. If instead of just passing by, he stopped to check me out, I'd explain that I assumed because he was tailing me so closely he meant to stop me. I'd be really straightforward and unpleasant but without implying that the tailgating was *wrong*, just that I took it as an authoritative act.
I have often gotten very far with police by affirming, as opposed to challenging their authority. At times, you can put an authority person into a complicated position by behaving as though you believe they have much more authority than they do -- for them, it becomes a challenge between asserting authority that they lack (which is a no-no for them), and admitting to you that their authority is limited.
On the other hand, the magic words have gotten action many times: "I realize you don't have the authority to tell that guy to move his car, but it sure is a nuisance that it's in the middle of the park", (and so on.)
But then, I have never had a police car tailgate me, unless it was moments before turning on the lights to pull me over for my expired plate.
In my town, at least on the major streets, emergency vehicles can reset the traffic lights. A couple of things happen when they call a code. Strobes start flashing on all the lights in the direction the emergency vehicle is travelling, and all of the lights on the crosswise direction start yellow, go to red and stay red for the duration of the code.
:-(
I live near several hospitals and I see this phenomenon routinely (with ambulances bringing in DUI carnage on weekends). I voted against the bond package that paid for the system, because it also included red light cameras and a street widening project that put an independent bookstore out of business
Anyway if someone in an emergency vehicle in my town wants to run red lights, he just has to flip a switch and he has a drag strip.
And yes, there are plenty of morons who are hip to this and *do* literally drag race when they see the strobes come on. (Motorcycles, especially).
>Police frequently have to run red lights. Maybe they are responding to a call. Maybe they are pulling over a drunk driver who ran the light.
Well, then, they have a defense. So when the DA confronts the cop with a ticket, he can show in his log that it was in the course of duty.
I have a feeling that any DA who actually presses a moving violation charge against an on-duty cop in a marked car, has a little more inclination that he is dealing with a cop who is abusing authority, not someone who ran a red light in order to respond to an emergency. The redlight camera has a time stamp, and so do the dispatch radio transcripts, and these days I'll be the car itself has a record of when code lights were set.
If you want to be able to operate on your own authority at your own discretion without constant scrutiny -- DON'T become a cop.
>If you misjudge that and decide to go through (and you have NO idea how FAST the yellow light is going to turn RED) and have it turn RED right as >you enter, BAMB, you have a ticket.
If the light was yellow when you entered the intersection, it's not a violation. If you misjudged and thought the light would stay yellow long enough for you to enter the intersection, you committed a moving violation if you got it wrong. If you are going fast enough that you saw the green change to yellow but did not have time to stop, you were speeding, or the light was malfunctioning.
If your argument in court is going to be "I entered on the caution light", you had better hope the photo equipment does not have specific calibration to show that the light was red before you entered.
>...almost certainly legal.
Why do you qualify it? Until someone comes forward with a lawful order, issued prior to the trip, that stipulates what she did was proscribed, there is no argument.
In order to make this case against Pelosi, three things are required:
1. State the case explicitly. What is it, precisely, that she is accused of doing? This information must be supported by evidence, such as testimony from eyewitnesses. If she visited some place that she was prohibited from going, please show us the order from the State Department indicating that. If she said something to someone which was forbidden on the basis of some compelling state interest, show us where this has been alleged in some lawful way, by someone with the authority to do so. Authority, under our system of government, does not take the form of "everything not expressly permitted, is forbidden." This is fundamental. State the case describing what the person is accused of doing, and show the evidence to support the accusation.
2. State the law that was broken. The only law that has been mentioned in the Pelosi visit to Syria, to my knowledge, is the Logan Act. If you have satisfied requirement #1, then you may have an argument in terms of the Logan Act's predicate of "authority." But there is more that must be done. You need to be prepared to explain to a Federal Grand Jury that you seek to press charges based on a law that has no judicial history whatsoever. You will be asking for the first indictment in history, using a law that has no case law history at all, and you want that first indictment to be against an elected official who holds the highest legislative office in government -- having authority co-equal to that of the President of the United States and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
3. Demonstrate that your evidence supports your conclusion without violating the Constitutional Rights of any individual, and without making any procedural errors. This may be difficult to do, as all arguments I have seen thus far, single out the current Speaker of the House individually, and as far as I can tell, accuse her of some crime while broad immunity is granted to all others who have done precisely the same thing. It may take a considerable amount of effort to make a criminal case against one individual who has done something that others do routinely, but without such criminal exposure.
So, are you just being cautious with your "almost certainly legal" remark? Because the "almost" aspect of that, might become a factor if the entire foundation of the rule of law in the US is set aside for this one argument. I'm going with "was absolutely, 100% not illegal," and I would go further, the very few lawful means of preventing the Speaker from doing what she did, would themselves have created a much more significant controversy than the one we are discussing. Can you imagine the outrage that would ensue if the President had ordered the State Department to revoke the passports of Members of Congress, including the Speaker of the House? How do you think it would go over if *only* the Democrats in Congress had their passports revoked?
Please realize that without some specific lawful order that existed prior to the Congressional Delegation to Syria, there can be no valid argument that a crime was committed.
Fortunately, it is not yet the law of the land that an action which might run counter to the personal opinions of the President is a crime of treason.
And that, when you get down to it, is the basic premise of the argument the right wing is trying to make against Madame Speaker.
>You mean like engaging in unauthorized diplomatic negotiations with a foreign power? That's treason.
Oops. Careful. Before accusing the Speaker of the House of a capital crime, you might want to be sure you are on a solid legal footing.
There has been a flurry lately, among people who have discovered the Logan Act -- a piece of legislation that has NEVER been used. And they give it a cursory reading, and accept when they are told that it applies in the case of Madame Speaker's recent trip to Syria. They completely miss the fact that the Logan Act, even if it were enforceable, and even if it were enforceable against a sitting Member of Congress, is predicated on "authority." The problem, that the Fox news people et al fail to mention, is that she had authority to do what she did, and furthermore, any restrictions on that authority would have to come from an Act of Congress in the first place.
Now, if you can show that Madame Speaker violated a LAWFUL ORDER, we can discuss the validity of that order, and if you can establish that the order was violated, then we can talk about authority, the Logan Act, and treason.
However, you are putting forth an idea that the President's word is law at all times. You are actually going much further -- you are suggesting that just because the President has an opinion, or even, something that a person in the media might assume that opinion would be, THAT OPINION becomes law.
And so, by some extension that I follow not at all, the Speaker of the House did something without authority. And ONLY the Speaker, as a member of a bipartisan delegation together with representatives of the State Department, did something wrong. And nobody seems to be able to articulate, in a manner that would be acceptable to bring a criminal charge, exactly what that wrong thing was. They certainly have not brought evidence of a crime to the table of anyone with any authority to prosecute such a crime.
All they have done is cause those people who already hate the Speaker, and presumably everyone who is not a member of the Bush party, to continue to hate them.
In other words, no net effect.
I would like to think they have educated themselves in the process, on a historical legal curiosity, but sadly, they have not.
Please, before you publicly accuse an elected official of a capital crime, do have your evidence in hand. Otherwise you are simply calling for an assassination; a serious crime.
>OK, here are the problems. How am I supposed to trust a website to be the site I am intending to go to when a) its not on a https site, and its
>asking for my username/password, and I cannot verify via the certificate or anything that I did not type http://bankfoamerica.com/
>[bankfoamerica.com] by accident? b) how am I supposed to trust a website that is different almost every time I interface with it.
You are not supposed to! You should change banks. I would, (and have). Now I use a credit union whose IT is managed by a Math/CS professor who is well known in cryptography circles. I also use USAA, which I highly recommend to people who are eligible. (It bothers me that people leave the military and don't bother to get grandfathered into USAA; it's one of the best perks they offer.)
>In the end, they just said they were mandated by the federal government to do this. Does anyone know if this is true? What item in law mandates
>this?
I doubt it is specific to that one item. My guess would be, Federal Law required them to seek and receive approval for their plans before they put an online banking system in place; then they contracted to have it built, and that was a project that lasted for years. In order to make the change you want, they would have to go through a long complex process. So instead, they need to get rid of YOU.
So, remember when Jerry Garcia bought the film rights to make Sirens of Titan? And remember when Jerry died before that project really got started? Kurt bought back the rights and the screenplay.
Perhaps those to whom the rights will now transfer, will not do to Kurt, as was done to Heinlein or Dick.
>If you do the math you come to the conclusion that the human eye can't distinguish between 720p and 1080p when viewing a 50" screen from
> 8' away.
I often hear arguments against headroom that take the approach of claiming that some technology is at or beyond the limits of human perception. Most often, the argument is against the use of 24-bit dynamic range in digital audio, or against Nyquist frequencies above 18kHz or so.
Few of these arguments are made from the production side of things, though. They are usually from the point of view of the consumer as a leaf of the system. I suspect the argument against video resolution is similar.
Can you point to a properly conducted blind test that supports your premise, that viewers cannot distinguish between these? I can certainly accept that, just as I accept that a listener cannot discern dynamic or frequency content beyond certain limits. But on the production side of audio, especially in signal processing and synthesis, things aren't so simple. There are plenty of situations where wide dynamic range or very high frequency response are useful or even essential.
But here, we're only talking in terms of "watching TV." I don't really watch TV very much and don't have a dog in the fight. My interest in a big TV is primarily for use as a computer monitor -- and I'm a strictly 2-D desktop user, and need quality terminal windows. Good text rendering seems to be tougher than good game graphics. Oh well, I'm digressing.
I would like to see some blind study, though. I'm *sure* the person who *bought* the 50" 1080p thinks it's better; cognitive dissonance will see to that!
I'm surprised there aren't HP emulators for TI.
>I can almost hear the squeaking scientists running from the clouds of helium like a pack of chipmunks. Helium while a little dangerous ;)
>can be alot of fun too
The amount of helium in an MRI magnet, together with its location in a confined space, makes this no laughing matter.
Here's a fun experiment: You go in the server room while we lock the door from the outside and set off the halon system.
>.... What's with runnimg from the cloud of Helium
Think of it more in terms of running *toward* a source of breathable air. (Sucking He and N2O is all fun and games until you don't get to take a breath of air in between, and you drown -- if you're lucky.)
>...is that no-one, including the people who make the decision about phones on planes, wants to spend their next long-haul flight next to
> someone yakking on their phone for the entire time.
Except of course for the business-class asshole who can afford to swipe the amex through the card reader on *their* phone and pay for the privilege of being an annoying loudmouth. They are perfectly happy then.
>1) Directional antenna used at the base station, optimized for coverage of people on the ground, thus poor signal for things above them,
> probably getting worse with newer technologies and better antenna designs.
Design *for* it and charge a premium for in-flight roaming.