1080i (good enough) with mpeg4 compression is not 40Mb/s. It's less then 10mb/s
This is partly true now, but it is not going to be tru in the next 3-5 years, and yes, I realize that in those years broadcast will probably change a bit too, but there are limitations to how much it can change.
I have a 42" 1080p TV, I also have a HDV camcorder and HD cable. In general I am disappointed by a large portion of the HD content I get from my cable provider. My home video generally is of much better (visual, I can't direct or tell a story worth a damn) quality than the HD broadcast I get. When I get my PS3 which should be shipping from Amazon today (I got the 40G), I will probably watch more HD content using my PS3 than over cable.
So, what should change here? Well, it's easy. The studios should start selling their HD content directly to me. They can do that over the IP connection I buy from my cable company. Why would I waste that bandwidth with crappy "HD" content when I can get good HD content over my IP pipe with a slight delay directly from the content producer (obviously not going to happen for "real-time" content like sports).
The content producers, that is CBS etc, should start selling their stuff from their websites in full 1080p, pristine quality 25M or better, H.264. Team up with Sony, put some client, including whatever DRM they feel they need, on the PS3, and then send it to me if I buy it. They can even use a bittorrent like protocol for distribution, so I download it mostly from my neighbors, not from CBS directly.
Problem solved. I get great looking video. I pay for what I want, and only what I want. I can chose different quality settings depending on how quickly I need the content. I can subscribe to stuff and have it sent to me at night when I sleep. Anything you can imagine.
The problem is of course that it relegates the telecoms and the cable companies to "pipe" suppliers, but that is what we (maybe not you if you work for a cable company) want. Put a 25M pipe into my house and I decide how to utilize that bandwidth to get the content I want.
The content producer could even have a tiered pricing, $8 for no advertising, $4 for moderate advertising etc. The player they create with Sony would of course be configured such that fast-forwarding through ads would not be possible, but that wouldn't be a problem since I can chose whether I want that or not.
Oh, and imagine the possibilities for CBS and the advertisers. CBS sales guy: "So, what audience do you want to reach with your ad?" Advertiser: "Male, 35-45, income level 130K pluss." CBS: "OK, and how many of those do you want to reach, and how many times do you want each of them to see your ad?" Advertiser: "I want to reach 500,000 of them, and I want each of them to see the ad twice, no more no less." CBS sales guy: "OK, no problem."
It's not just that it's cheaper than BluRay. It's that it's reached the flashpoint for affordability for the average person
Actually, at this time, that isn't relevant. The realistic minimum size for an HD TV is about 42". The 42" HD TVs, particularly those that support 1080p, and the sales guy will push 1080p, are still well above $1000. Whether the player costs $200 or $300 when your TV costs $1200 and your new (you know you need that right) receiver will cost you about $300 too, is not relevant for Joe Average. That is why Joe Average is not going to jump on the HD bandwagon this year. Probably not even next year.
That is the difference between this battle and the VHS vs Betamax battle. This battle will probably be fought and won entirely in the enthusiast market. The studios will switch sides, and right now the side they are most likely to go to will be Blu-Ray. Paramount will switch in time for the Holiday 2009 season, which is when Joe Average will start buying into HD. By then the enthusiasts among us will already be moving to Ultra High Def which far surpasses 35mm film in perceived quality.
I don't want to jump the gun, but the $100 HD-DVD player might very well kill Blu-Ray as a video medium.
I doubt it. Seriously. Blu-ray disks (that is video) is already outselling HD-DVD 2-1, and has been for some time. Most of the major studios now are behind Blu-Ray, with very few in reality going HD-DVD exclusive. The last studio to go HD-DVD exclusive only said they would be HD-DVD exclusive for 18 months, and in 12 months (almost 6 months ago since the announce) reguler DVDs will still outsell HD formats lots to one.
The next gen disk format war probably has already been won by Blu-Ray since it is, with a significant margin, the format of choice for both enthusiasts and the studios. It is also so far the only format with a functional burner, and it looks like it is going to be so for quite some time. The Toshiba HD-DVD burner was a dismal failure, and nobody else is trying.
What people don't realize is that on the hardware/software side of things, HD-DVD vs Blu-Ray today really is Toshiba and Microsoft vs everybody else, and given the fact that Blu-Ray fully supports the VC-1 format, it will not cost Microsoft much to switch. On the movie side of things you have most of the important studios firmly in the Blu-Ray camp such as Disney and Sony, and a few half-hearted ones in the HD-DVD camp. Paramount/Dreamworks being the most notable, and they have clearly stated they will revise their strategy in 2009. 2009 is probably plenty of time, but I am willing to bet right now that Paramount/Dreamworks will release a ton of Blu-Ray titles in time for Christmas 2009, which will probably be the death date of HD-DVD.
Also, as computer professionals, we have everything to gain from Blu-Ray winning out. It will give us two things.
A better storage medium. I still like to burn stuff on something that I can easily bring with me, and 50G is better than 30G, oh, and HD-DVD as a burnable medium. Not until 2009 is my bet, if ever.
Blu-ray supports Java for its menu system and extras functionality. This means that software developers will get more work from the Blu-Ray camp than they will from the HD-DVD camp, so geeks who wants to get into "The Industry" should definitely support Blu-Ray.
Oh, and did I mention that Blu-Ray has been out-selling HD-DVD 2-1 throughout 2007?
h.264 can compress this "20-40gb of data" into something that can fit on a dvd-9 without discernible loss of quality, sir.
Not really. Moderate quality hi def H.264 is encoded at about 18M/s. If you add sound to that, again at moderate AVC encoded stereo, your movie will hit about 12G for 90 minutes. That doesn't fit a DVD-9. Blu-ray supports video encoding at 40M/s.
In real life you can fit about 20-25 minutes of acceptable H.264 video on a single layer DVD and about twice that on a dual layer DVD. These DVDs are called AVCHD disks in the Blu-Ray world and DVDx3 in the HD-DVD world. Most players can play these DVDs fine by spinning them at 3 times normal speed (DVDx3, et it?) to get the required bitrate off the disk in real time. This would amount to about 25M/s, but with read error recovery your practical max bitrate is somewhere around 18M.
NineNine: no content available... improvement over DVD isn't nearly enough
There is no content available? Are you serious? Have you not been paying attention since January? Yes, there is a lot of content available, and the quality of the content has improved dramatically since the first releases, many which quite frankly were rather bad.
Now, to quality improvement over DVD. Here you are plainly wrong. The improvement in HD over SD is quite noticeable, particularly in the US where the better color space of HD is a marked improvement over NTSC SD, but the resolution is also very noticeably better. If you have the appropriate sized TV for your room, the perceived quality of HD approaches, or even exceeds that of film in a theater. Now, before you go nuts and start explaining to me how insane I am since 35mm has much higher resolution than HD, please google "HD vs 35mm" to find out that you are wrong.
Quite frankly, if you think that HD is just a small improvement over SD it means one of four things. 1/ You have serious vision problems. 2/ You have been watching bad source material or a bad transfer. 3/ You have watched the material on a bad TV. 4/ You haven't really seen HD material yet.
when the planet is so overpopulated, that the one and only resource the moon has, space, will actually become valuable enough
That is actually never going to happen. As another poster said, space is not an issue at all on earth. In fact, space-wise we are quite underpopulated. If you want to make a city with moderate population density and put the entire population of the world in this one city, you'll still have plenty of space in the United Kingdom.
The only resource the moon has that we know of, that we will ever be interested in, is H3.
As others have said, not really correct. Also note that most Wine competitions are actually blind, and even double-blind tests, so who gets prices in competitions is actually wholly dependent on the quality of the drink. As for Wine magzines I do not know.
This also reminds me of this new "fantastic" pianist that was "discovered" using the 'net some time ago. It turns out she doesn't really play any more, but that her "recordings" are just copies of older recordings. It started out slow, grew to hysterical proportions and she was declared a genius before man. At that point all the music columnist have jumped on the bandwagon too, and they all write articles about her.
After a while it is discovered that she is just releasing the works of others, and in one of the works the artist, and what CD it was copied from is identified. Funnily enough, a reviewer that raved about "her" playing this particular piece, had been very critical about the guy who actually recorded it. So, for the exact same recording he gave the "phenomenon" six thumbs up, but ragged all over the guy who actually did the recording.
On a good 1080p HD TV, the visual resolution of HD rivals what you see in a movie theater. If you don't think there is a difference, I can recommend a good optician.
- The world will never need more than 4 or 5 computers.
- Nobody will ever need more than 640K of memory.
- We can close all patents offices now, everything is invented (ca 1890)
You can go on and on. I do HD video with my very inexpensive HD camcorder. 30G is nothing. Nothing at all.
I've heard this from enough sources that I believe there are some problems, but I've never heard details and that makes me very suspicious.
Unemployment rates among young immigrants in France are staggering, even if you go by the official numbers. The unofficial numbers are even higher. The reality is that in certain parts of the French immigrant population more than half the population is unemployed, and sadly, unemployable.
What other laws are you referring to when you say that the political system has banned minorities from the workplace?
A society is not run on laws alone, however, with the rather strange employment laws in France, employing anyone that is not 100% "safe" is highly risky. This means that you get an institutionalized, de-facto discrimination, no matter what other laws you have.
Also, "banishing" is a strong word. Are you claiming that certain minorities are forced, by law, to live in specific places?
No, minorities in France are not required by law to stay in certain places. They are forced by necessity to do so however. When the organization of a country is such that people have no real practical choice, you really don't need laws to spell out the governments policy in real words. Again, no, there are no laws requiring this, just the standard practices of government.
Just because America doesn't have the same societal problems arising from immigrants doesn't mean anything.
Yes, that is in fact what it means. The US doesn't have the social problems with immigrants precisely because the US has an economic policy and a social policy where immigrants can work and supply them selves and their family with the resources they need. This is a very important point. People want to be able to help themselves. In the US they are allowed to, both by law and in practical terms. In most European countries they are practically banned, in some cases by law, in other cases just through practical policies.
the French are being no more racist or discriminatory than the people who move there and consciously don't accept French culture, and raise their kids to do the same.
Well, I have this notion, you know, that people should be allowed to be who they are and dow what they want, irrespective of their race, religion, belief system etc. I have adapter the American culture, but I respect anybodys right to hang on to their own culture, religion or other aspect as long as they are not doing harm to others.
As for language, these people speak French no problem. Language is not an issue at all. These immigrants are not unable to work due to a language problem. They are unable to work because their names are Mohammad and Ali and therefore are a higher risk than Yves. Since they are a higher risk, they are unemployable in a system where if you hire the wrong person you can't fire them.
Are these immigrants in France eligible for health care, welfare, and state sponsored education?
Yes, they are, they are just not practically able to get a job once they grow up. Half of them. They go to school, and the only thing they learn is that no matter what they do, they won't really get a job. That is their reality. As I said, these immigrants speak French perfectly.
As for Eva Joly, you'd probably have to live in France to understand. Yes, she did very well in France, but no matter what she has done, she is, and she will always be, an outsider.
Africa is starving because of corruption. because people are selfish, self-centered and will string their "brother" up to dry in order to get ahead
Zimbabwe used to be a pillar of medium sanity on an insane continent. Now it is a shit hole of starvation and crap. Socialism. South Africa was bad under the Apartheid. It is terrible under the inept regime of the ANC. On most accounts far worse than it was under Apartheid. Socialism. Not that I am advocating Apartheid, I am not, Apartheid is as far from Libertarianism as is Socialism. Just pointing out that of the two it seems the ANC version of socialism is far worse for the people than Apartheid.
Africa is bad because most countries in Africa are run really, really badly by incompetent people. Most of the regimes in Africa are totalitarian rather than libertarian. Most of them have a strong left-leaning tendency.
People don't work hard in the US because of recognition or winning. They do it because it gives them money to buy things.
Monetary rewards are still rewards.
People don't work hard in the US because of recognition or winning. They do it because it gives them money
As they say in poker, the money is just a way to keep score. Yes, you are right, people do it for the money. That's the reward people want. Is money not a reward? In Norway, as an example, a bus driver makes only a little less money than an IT professional.
don't realise what an achievement this is? Most countries that have won a natural resources jackpot have failed to achieve a generally high standard of living
It is not much of an achievement for a democracy not to fall into the abyss of horror that most other countries who found huge resources by accident are in. Norway isn't Saudi Arabia simply because Norway was a well functioning country before the oil came. Saudi Arabia was a shit hole before the oil and now it is a richer shit hole.
But presumably you want more for yourself?
Just a healthy, competitive, innovative society. That's all. A society where healthy competition brings out the best in people. I don't care what people think of me. I am just moderately accomplished. It pisses me off to see mediocre idiots who have never accomplished shit criticize highly accomplished people though. I hate to see mediocrity on top. Talent should be on top. Talent better leave Norway pretty fast if it wants to be up there even.
Because they have created a political system where minorities are, for all practical purposes and intents, banned from the real workplace. Because they have created a system of massive oppression of the minorities and banishing these, with a tiny number of exceptions, to banlieus similarly to how Jews were treated in Europe many, many years ago.
How to be accepted in France
Hey, interesting. Good example on how intolerant the French are. How to be accepted in the US:
- Don't be a criminal
- Don't be a drag on society
- Otherwise do as you bloody well please
This is the difference between the Europeans and the Americans. In Europe the only way to be accepted is to become identical to whatever Europeans live around you, and even then it is hard. If your name is Mohammad or James, getting a job in France is incredibly much more difficult than if your name is Yves. That is a matter of fact, and it is a matter of French intolerance to anyone who is not French through many generations. If your great grandfather didn't have a pencil mustache and wore a beret, forget about integration in France. Believe me, I have tried, and I spoke French at the time.
It took me about 15 minutes to integrate into the American society, it would probably have taken me 15 years in France, and still I would have been an outsider (Just ask the Eva Joly).
That is the reality. Don't pretend it isn't. Work to change that reality, but not in some dreamy way where you pretend that is not the reality.
So how do I work to change that other than vote for third-party candidates? Enlighten me please.
Most likely, the 'two party system' has to be changed from within.
So, what incentives can you think of that the two big ones have to change that if they have no serious competition? Which of the corrupt big-government socialist parties should I join? Democrats or Repugnicans? I mean, if the Republican Party of Bush Sr. actually existed, that would be a good place to start, but is there such a party? No.
This year there is a libertarian candidate running under the Republican flag, do you even know who he is?
Don't just step outside 'the system' and tilt at windmills.
So voting for third party candidates is "stepping outside the system"? What kind of system is that? The kind of system that have five-year economic plans, gulags and old presidents on display in a glass cage. That's the kind.
The thing I like about the state health system is that if I get some major league illness or disability, which would cost a fortune,
The problem is that an illness that in the US could cost you a fortune, could kill you in Europe. So, what do you want to be, poor and alive or dead and dead? But you have a point, as the Tony Snow case shows. His cancer treatment has cost him more than he can afford on a public servant salary with a public servant health insurance. I don't know what insurance he has though.
True that I can just buy health insurance, but how do I know which company to go with?
You become an informed consumer. That is what the internet is for.
am i really going to have to argue with lawyers about what is and is not covered when I need an operation?
Generally, no, in a small number of cases, yes you'd have to. It's rare, and it's dependent on what type of insurance you have. The responsibility for your health therefore is in your lap. Who would you rather have the responsibility for your health, your self or Gordon Brown?
I think the brain drain thing is purely because its expensive to go relocate that distance,so minimum wage manual labourers in the UK are not going to go live in the US
Since the British in general do not have easy access to US skilled visas, this is actually not the case. A significant portion of the British who work in the US are close to minimum wage laborers. For the rest of Europe that is not the case, and it is not due to the cost of relocation, a ticket to the US is not that much more expensive than a ticket through the Chunnel. The reason is US immigration policy. If you are not a brain-drain candidate it is really hard to come to the US legally.
Which is how you create a nation of social welfare clients. If that is what you want, that is OK. Without a huge pile of gold in your back garden, or oil just off your coast, you are screwed.
For those who don't particularly enjoy living in a country populated by self-satisfied social welfare clients who think that they are the center of the universe, driving around in their Toyota Corollas and taking vacations in exotic locations like Grand Canaria, it isn't so nice. But that is just a matter of opinion and preference of course. I prefer to live in a country where people who excel are actually rewarded, not ridiculed.
So let me get this straight, there's only one kind and formulation of socialism. I didn't realize that Sweden was a political clone of Red China, thanks for that insight.
No, there isn't. There are many facets of most political systems. The tendency is that more capitalism, that is more freedom for economic interaction, leads to better lives for people in any country. Sweden has some social policies and some heavy capitalism. The mix in Sweden is not bad at all, but Sweden, as the rest of Europe, has some serious structural problems that needs fixing in the next few years. Retirement being one of them.
Where would Europe have been if the United States hadn't kept extending credit to Germany in 1920s, encouraging an unsustainable economic pattern?
So when a European country falls on its ass due to bad policy it is the fault of the US? So are you seriously implying that the bad economic policies of the current government under The Bushman is not the fault of The Bushman, but the fault of the countries lending the US money? What kind of argument is that?
Where would Europe have been if the United States had actually joined the League of Nations, instead of leaving it to become an ineffective and almost meaningless bloc of nations?
Again, are you serious? The fact that The League of Nations was unable to find their dumb asses without a map was the fault of the US isolationist policy at the time? Is the reason that the UN of today is such a pile of dog dung the fault of Switzerland then? Is it Norway's fault that the EU is a corrupt, inefficient and incapable of anything more meaningful than wasting taxpayer money? BTW, what the hell is the UK, a reasonably well-functioning country doing in the dysfunctional club of misfits that is the EU anyway?
Where would Europe have been if the United States had entered the war with Great Britain in 1939, instead of waiting over two years while the Axis sliced and diced the British Empire?
Again, are you effing serious or just making jokes? Are you blaming the US for not taking part in a war that was entirely outside of the US? Why is it bad that the US didn't go to war on Germany in 1939, and also bad that the US did go to war on Iraq some 60 odd years later? From outside the war in 1939 was en internal European affair. The problems in Iraq were definitely internal, and the US had, at the time, no business in engaging in either of those campaigns. It would have been sheer lunacy for the US, given the information at the time, to join the war in 1939.
Please, if you want to blame fuckups on someone, blame it on the people who fucked up, not on the ones who decided not to take part in the fuckup. WWII was the fault of Britain, France and Germany, not the US. The pathetic aspects of the League of Nations was entirely the fault of the pathetic mandate it was given by the spineless politicians that created it. The idea of blaming everybody else for your own fuckups, but taking credit for all of your own "genius" moves is so effing American, and it makes me sick. Don't become American please. Anybody, Germany, The League of Nations, France, Britain and the US too, should take responsibility for their own actions. Blaming those who chose to stand on the sideline is pathetic in the extreme. If I watch, with fascination, as you kill your self through a spectacular set of dumb actions, I may be a bit of a shit for not stopping you, but I am still not responsible for your death.
your assumption that everyone in Europe is mediocre with all the clever ones going to the USA
If it seemed I said that, I am sorry. That is not true. The vast majority of people never migrate whether it is to their benefit or detriment. Even people who are in piss-poor situations will not migrate, even though they should. I'd recommend the comedian Carlos Mencia for a funny look at this topic. What I was attempting to put into words is that there is a significant migration from Europe to the US, and all of that migration, with minor exceptions, is what you call brain drain. This is due to the requirements for immigration from Europe created by the US government.
am tempted to go live in the states (rather than the Uk). why?
the dollar is so weak
This is a good reason to come to the US on vacation, but not to migrate. If you migrate you'll be paid in the local currency, and its relative strength is only really relevant if you purchase imported goods. For the US this is less relevant than for most other countries, since the US has in a stroke of accidental genius made the greenback the default world currency. This means that the US is far less susceptible to currency variations than other countries. The fact that the US can also borrow money in its own currency is pure and utter genius. Imagine being able to slice your debt in half by just instituting some bad economic policies like the current administration is doing.
I sell on-line, so i get paid in dollars, and the dollar is so weak in Europe it badly affects my income.
As I said, a stroke of genius. On part of the Americans. Bad for you. If you want a stable income rather than a fluctuating one, you should probably live in the US.
I'd really miss our state health service, which is one reason I'm still here.
No, you probably wouldn't. The Norwegian public health care system (which I know) is one of the best in the world. Apparently even far better than the British. If you have a decent job in the US you will, in all cases except a small number of exceptions, have far better health care in the US than in Norway. If you have no job, you will have a reasonable health care system. The problem is if you have a decent job that doesn't cover your insurance (the vast majority of jobs covers it), then you are in trouble. But have no doubt, people who die in the European public health care system survive in the US private system. People who wait in queues in the European system get immediate and excellent care and help in the US.
Some ten years ago or so I passed out in my doctors office, probably due to stress and dehydration. Problem was, as I passed out the good doctor observed a spasm in my leg. This may be an indication of epilepsy or other brain problem, perhaps a beginning tumor. Best thing to do would to do a full check up. Most European doctors would not have recommended that due to the fact that it would have taken a lot of time then and it would have cost a lot of money. The minor spasm wouldn't warrant a full check-up. Interestingly, in Norway my sister in law was, at the time, waiting on the third month, for an MRI scan after a fall.
My doctor was a regular family doctor doing some of my post-immigration check up. He was not at a hospital or anything like that. My appointment was early in the morning. Probably around nine or so. By the end of that day I had finished a full check up. I had had an EEG, an MRI scan, the works. I had seen my brain in 3D and full color. In most European countries this would have taken weeks or months to arrange. Weeks and months where something nasty theoretically could have gone from bad to terrible.
Don't believe all the stories you hear about the US health care system, but don't disregard all of them either. The story of Tony Snow is an example from the bad end of the spectrum.
Running an Irish pub is a common occupation for smart people in the US, then? Or did you just pull that last statement out of your ass? Guess you did.
Eh, the two statements are entirely unrelated. The first part of the statement was to arrest the absurd notion that there are few European immigrants in the US, when a tiny country like Ireland, with 4 million (well, a little over) gets on the list with countries like China and India. In fact, there are abotu 200 times as many Irish immigrants in the US as there are Chinese, relative to the size of the countries. Forgive me if my math is slightly off.
The second statement is just a statement of fact. The smart people are in fact leaving Europe for the US. This is not only demonstrably true, it has also been a topic of conversation in Europe for years and years. But then again, I guess you are one of those ignorant people who don't know things like this.
Are you familiar with the term "brain drain"? This is when smart people systematically leave one region to seek their fortunes in a region that is more supportive of their talents. There is a significant immigration from Europe to the US still, and the immigration consists of, as opposed to the immigration to the US from Latin America, the top talent of Europe. If you are really good at what you are doing, you will in a significant number of cases move to the US. Soccer perhaps being one of the few exceptions.
If you want to read more and get enlightened, try this article. If you would rather stay ignorant and argumentative I'd recommend you do not read the article. Your illusions will be shattered.
If you don't want to shatter your illusions by reading this article - let me enlighten you just a little bit. An example to show why talented people are leaving Europe and working in the US instead.
If you are a professor at most European universities, you have a certain salary. What subject you teach is more or less irrelevant in regards to your salary. If you teach economics your salary is about the same, with minor variations, as the salary of a history professor or a sociology professor. This is because in the European mindset your effort is what should determine your salary, not your marketability.
In the US a professor of history makes from $45,000 and up to about $80,000 or so, depending on university, experience etc. If you have a PhD of Economics and you join one of the better schools, like Yale, your starting salary is probably going to be in the $120,000 to $150,000 range. If you get tenure you'll probably go well past $200,000. In base salary. He makes two or three times as much as a professor of history. Is this fair? Yes it is. Does it mean that the smart economic students are moving to the US, yes it does.
If you finish a PhD in the US, which a lot of Europeans do, with great grades and a job offer from Cornell or Yale. How many people would move back to Europe? How many could?
withdrawing from the system and copping a superior attitude
How is voting for a libertarian candidate "withdrawing from the system"? Are you seriously suggesting that the only way to take part in a democracy is to vote for the two established parties? If you are, it is not surprising that our democracy is being flushed down the toilet as fast as it is.
school doesn't want to deal with a lawsuit for millions of dollars for "mental anguish"
Now this is a problem with the US, and here reform is needed. I even think the reform would be relatively easy to create. Civil lawsuits with massive pay outs are a drain on business and society as such. Change one single thing and they will go away as a problem but remain as a problem solution.
Award the cost of litigation to the defendant as a rule when he wins a civil law suit. This will curb the enthusiasm for suing everybody for ridiculous things like spilling hot coffee in your own crutch. Coffee is hot. You spill it in your crutch you are a dumbass and you take the consequences. You sue Micky D for it, and you pay Micky's court cost if you lose (which the dummy eventually did). The prospect of paying for the legal cost of someone like Micky D might make you think twice about suing.
You could even alter this practice just a little bit so that if the plaintiff can't pay, his legal counsel is required to pick up the bill. That would put a stop to the ambulance chasers pretty fast.
Problem today is that people have become smart about suing companies. They don't sue for hundreds of millions of dollars any more. They sue for smaller amounts so that it is more cost efficient for the company to pay than to fight. In a civilized society that is called extortion, and would be illegal. You can't ban lawsuits though, but you can make irresponsible litigation very dangerous.
As someone else pointed out, Ireland is Europe. Not only is Ireland Europe, but Ireland has about 4 million people in it. Think about that. If the Chinese migrated to the US in the same numbers that the Irish do, there would have been about 300,000,000 Irish immigrants in the US. Going by the number of excellent Irish pubs over here, it some times seems like that is the case, but still.
Now, more importantly, who leaves Europe for the US? The smart people. Leaving the mediocre behind.
Slashdot Mirror
This is partly true now, but it is not going to be tru in the next 3-5 years, and yes, I realize that in those years broadcast will probably change a bit too, but there are limitations to how much it can change.
I have a 42" 1080p TV, I also have a HDV camcorder and HD cable. In general I am disappointed by a large portion of the HD content I get from my cable provider. My home video generally is of much better (visual, I can't direct or tell a story worth a damn) quality than the HD broadcast I get. When I get my PS3 which should be shipping from Amazon today (I got the 40G), I will probably watch more HD content using my PS3 than over cable.
So, what should change here? Well, it's easy. The studios should start selling their HD content directly to me. They can do that over the IP connection I buy from my cable company. Why would I waste that bandwidth with crappy "HD" content when I can get good HD content over my IP pipe with a slight delay directly from the content producer (obviously not going to happen for "real-time" content like sports).
The content producers, that is CBS etc, should start selling their stuff from their websites in full 1080p, pristine quality 25M or better, H.264. Team up with Sony, put some client, including whatever DRM they feel they need, on the PS3, and then send it to me if I buy it. They can even use a bittorrent like protocol for distribution, so I download it mostly from my neighbors, not from CBS directly.
Problem solved. I get great looking video. I pay for what I want, and only what I want. I can chose different quality settings depending on how quickly I need the content. I can subscribe to stuff and have it sent to me at night when I sleep. Anything you can imagine.
The problem is of course that it relegates the telecoms and the cable companies to "pipe" suppliers, but that is what we (maybe not you if you work for a cable company) want. Put a 25M pipe into my house and I decide how to utilize that bandwidth to get the content I want.
The content producer could even have a tiered pricing, $8 for no advertising, $4 for moderate advertising etc. The player they create with Sony would of course be configured such that fast-forwarding through ads would not be possible, but that wouldn't be a problem since I can chose whether I want that or not.
Oh, and imagine the possibilities for CBS and the advertisers. CBS sales guy: "So, what audience do you want to reach with your ad?" Advertiser: "Male, 35-45, income level 130K pluss." CBS: "OK, and how many of those do you want to reach, and how many times do you want each of them to see your ad?" Advertiser: "I want to reach 500,000 of them, and I want each of them to see the ad twice, no more no less." CBS sales guy: "OK, no problem."
Actually, at this time, that isn't relevant. The realistic minimum size for an HD TV is about 42". The 42" HD TVs, particularly those that support 1080p, and the sales guy will push 1080p, are still well above $1000. Whether the player costs $200 or $300 when your TV costs $1200 and your new (you know you need that right) receiver will cost you about $300 too, is not relevant for Joe Average. That is why Joe Average is not going to jump on the HD bandwagon this year. Probably not even next year.
That is the difference between this battle and the VHS vs Betamax battle. This battle will probably be fought and won entirely in the enthusiast market. The studios will switch sides, and right now the side they are most likely to go to will be Blu-Ray. Paramount will switch in time for the Holiday 2009 season, which is when Joe Average will start buying into HD. By then the enthusiasts among us will already be moving to Ultra High Def which far surpasses 35mm film in perceived quality.
I doubt it. Seriously. Blu-ray disks (that is video) is already outselling HD-DVD 2-1, and has been for some time. Most of the major studios now are behind Blu-Ray, with very few in reality going HD-DVD exclusive. The last studio to go HD-DVD exclusive only said they would be HD-DVD exclusive for 18 months, and in 12 months (almost 6 months ago since the announce) reguler DVDs will still outsell HD formats lots to one.
The next gen disk format war probably has already been won by Blu-Ray since it is, with a significant margin, the format of choice for both enthusiasts and the studios. It is also so far the only format with a functional burner, and it looks like it is going to be so for quite some time. The Toshiba HD-DVD burner was a dismal failure, and nobody else is trying.
What people don't realize is that on the hardware/software side of things, HD-DVD vs Blu-Ray today really is Toshiba and Microsoft vs everybody else, and given the fact that Blu-Ray fully supports the VC-1 format, it will not cost Microsoft much to switch. On the movie side of things you have most of the important studios firmly in the Blu-Ray camp such as Disney and Sony, and a few half-hearted ones in the HD-DVD camp. Paramount/Dreamworks being the most notable, and they have clearly stated they will revise their strategy in 2009. 2009 is probably plenty of time, but I am willing to bet right now that Paramount/Dreamworks will release a ton of Blu-Ray titles in time for Christmas 2009, which will probably be the death date of HD-DVD.
Also, as computer professionals, we have everything to gain from Blu-Ray winning out. It will give us two things.
- A better storage medium. I still like to burn stuff on something that I can easily bring with me, and 50G is better than 30G, oh, and HD-DVD as a burnable medium. Not until 2009 is my bet, if ever.
- Blu-ray supports Java for its menu system and extras functionality. This means that software developers will get more work from the Blu-Ray camp than they will from the HD-DVD camp, so geeks who wants to get into "The Industry" should definitely support Blu-Ray.
Oh, and did I mention that Blu-Ray has been out-selling HD-DVD 2-1 throughout 2007?Not really. Moderate quality hi def H.264 is encoded at about 18M/s. If you add sound to that, again at moderate AVC encoded stereo, your movie will hit about 12G for 90 minutes. That doesn't fit a DVD-9. Blu-ray supports video encoding at 40M/s.
In real life you can fit about 20-25 minutes of acceptable H.264 video on a single layer DVD and about twice that on a dual layer DVD. These DVDs are called AVCHD disks in the Blu-Ray world and DVDx3 in the HD-DVD world. Most players can play these DVDs fine by spinning them at 3 times normal speed (DVDx3, et it?) to get the required bitrate off the disk in real time. This would amount to about 25M/s, but with read error recovery your practical max bitrate is somewhere around 18M.
There is no content available? Are you serious? Have you not been paying attention since January? Yes, there is a lot of content available, and the quality of the content has improved dramatically since the first releases, many which quite frankly were rather bad.
Now, to quality improvement over DVD. Here you are plainly wrong. The improvement in HD over SD is quite noticeable, particularly in the US where the better color space of HD is a marked improvement over NTSC SD, but the resolution is also very noticeably better. If you have the appropriate sized TV for your room, the perceived quality of HD approaches, or even exceeds that of film in a theater. Now, before you go nuts and start explaining to me how insane I am since 35mm has much higher resolution than HD, please google "HD vs 35mm" to find out that you are wrong.
Quite frankly, if you think that HD is just a small improvement over SD it means one of four things. 1/ You have serious vision problems. 2/ You have been watching bad source material or a bad transfer. 3/ You have watched the material on a bad TV. 4/ You haven't really seen HD material yet.
That is actually never going to happen. As another poster said, space is not an issue at all on earth. In fact, space-wise we are quite underpopulated. If you want to make a city with moderate population density and put the entire population of the world in this one city, you'll still have plenty of space in the United Kingdom.
The only resource the moon has that we know of, that we will ever be interested in, is H3.
Sure thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joyce_Hatto
As others have said, not really correct. Also note that most Wine competitions are actually blind, and even double-blind tests, so who gets prices in competitions is actually wholly dependent on the quality of the drink. As for Wine magzines I do not know.
This also reminds me of this new "fantastic" pianist that was "discovered" using the 'net some time ago. It turns out she doesn't really play any more, but that her "recordings" are just copies of older recordings. It started out slow, grew to hysterical proportions and she was declared a genius before man. At that point all the music columnist have jumped on the bandwagon too, and they all write articles about her.
After a while it is discovered that she is just releasing the works of others, and in one of the works the artist, and what CD it was copied from is identified. Funnily enough, a reviewer that raved about "her" playing this particular piece, had been very critical about the guy who actually recorded it. So, for the exact same recording he gave the "phenomenon" six thumbs up, but ragged all over the guy who actually did the recording.
On a good 1080p HD TV, the visual resolution of HD rivals what you see in a movie theater. If you don't think there is a difference, I can recommend a good optician.
This is too easy.
- The world will never need more than 4 or 5 computers.
- Nobody will ever need more than 640K of memory.
- We can close all patents offices now, everything is invented (ca 1890)
You can go on and on. I do HD video with my very inexpensive HD camcorder. 30G is nothing. Nothing at all.
Unemployment rates among young immigrants in France are staggering, even if you go by the official numbers. The unofficial numbers are even higher. The reality is that in certain parts of the French immigrant population more than half the population is unemployed, and sadly, unemployable.
A society is not run on laws alone, however, with the rather strange employment laws in France, employing anyone that is not 100% "safe" is highly risky. This means that you get an institutionalized, de-facto discrimination, no matter what other laws you have.
No, minorities in France are not required by law to stay in certain places. They are forced by necessity to do so however. When the organization of a country is such that people have no real practical choice, you really don't need laws to spell out the governments policy in real words. Again, no, there are no laws requiring this, just the standard practices of government.
Yes, that is in fact what it means. The US doesn't have the social problems with immigrants precisely because the US has an economic policy and a social policy where immigrants can work and supply them selves and their family with the resources they need. This is a very important point. People want to be able to help themselves. In the US they are allowed to, both by law and in practical terms. In most European countries they are practically banned, in some cases by law, in other cases just through practical policies.
Well, I have this notion, you know, that people should be allowed to be who they are and dow what they want, irrespective of their race, religion, belief system etc. I have adapter the American culture, but I respect anybodys right to hang on to their own culture, religion or other aspect as long as they are not doing harm to others.
As for language, these people speak French no problem. Language is not an issue at all. These immigrants are not unable to work due to a language problem. They are unable to work because their names are Mohammad and Ali and therefore are a higher risk than Yves. Since they are a higher risk, they are unemployable in a system where if you hire the wrong person you can't fire them.
Yes, they are, they are just not practically able to get a job once they grow up. Half of them. They go to school, and the only thing they learn is that no matter what they do, they won't really get a job. That is their reality. As I said, these immigrants speak French perfectly.
As for Eva Joly, you'd probably have to live in France to understand. Yes, she did very well in France, but no matter what she has done, she is, and she will always be, an outsider.
Zimbabwe used to be a pillar of medium sanity on an insane continent. Now it is a shit hole of starvation and crap. Socialism. South Africa was bad under the Apartheid. It is terrible under the inept regime of the ANC. On most accounts far worse than it was under Apartheid. Socialism. Not that I am advocating Apartheid, I am not, Apartheid is as far from Libertarianism as is Socialism. Just pointing out that of the two it seems the ANC version of socialism is far worse for the people than Apartheid.
Africa is bad because most countries in Africa are run really, really badly by incompetent people. Most of the regimes in Africa are totalitarian rather than libertarian. Most of them have a strong left-leaning tendency.
Monetary rewards are still rewards.
As they say in poker, the money is just a way to keep score. Yes, you are right, people do it for the money. That's the reward people want. Is money not a reward? In Norway, as an example, a bus driver makes only a little less money than an IT professional.
It is not much of an achievement for a democracy not to fall into the abyss of horror that most other countries who found huge resources by accident are in. Norway isn't Saudi Arabia simply because Norway was a well functioning country before the oil came. Saudi Arabia was a shit hole before the oil and now it is a richer shit hole.
Just a healthy, competitive, innovative society. That's all. A society where healthy competition brings out the best in people. I don't care what people think of me. I am just moderately accomplished. It pisses me off to see mediocre idiots who have never accomplished shit criticize highly accomplished people though. I hate to see mediocrity on top. Talent should be on top. Talent better leave Norway pretty fast if it wants to be up there even.
Because they have created a political system where minorities are, for all practical purposes and intents, banned from the real workplace. Because they have created a system of massive oppression of the minorities and banishing these, with a tiny number of exceptions, to banlieus similarly to how Jews were treated in Europe many, many years ago.
Hey, interesting. Good example on how intolerant the French are. How to be accepted in the US:
- Don't be a criminal
- Don't be a drag on society
- Otherwise do as you bloody well please
This is the difference between the Europeans and the Americans. In Europe the only way to be accepted is to become identical to whatever Europeans live around you, and even then it is hard. If your name is Mohammad or James, getting a job in France is incredibly much more difficult than if your name is Yves. That is a matter of fact, and it is a matter of French intolerance to anyone who is not French through many generations. If your great grandfather didn't have a pencil mustache and wore a beret, forget about integration in France. Believe me, I have tried, and I spoke French at the time.
It took me about 15 minutes to integrate into the American society, it would probably have taken me 15 years in France, and still I would have been an outsider (Just ask the Eva Joly).
Don't worry, doesn't work in Norway either. It only appears to work since there is almost an unlimited source of funds to throw at these services.
So how do I work to change that other than vote for third-party candidates? Enlighten me please.
So, what incentives can you think of that the two big ones have to change that if they have no serious competition? Which of the corrupt big-government socialist parties should I join? Democrats or Repugnicans? I mean, if the Republican Party of Bush Sr. actually existed, that would be a good place to start, but is there such a party? No.
This year there is a libertarian candidate running under the Republican flag, do you even know who he is?
So voting for third party candidates is "stepping outside the system"? What kind of system is that? The kind of system that have five-year economic plans, gulags and old presidents on display in a glass cage. That's the kind.
The problem is that an illness that in the US could cost you a fortune, could kill you in Europe. So, what do you want to be, poor and alive or dead and dead? But you have a point, as the Tony Snow case shows. His cancer treatment has cost him more than he can afford on a public servant salary with a public servant health insurance. I don't know what insurance he has though.
You become an informed consumer. That is what the internet is for.
Generally, no, in a small number of cases, yes you'd have to. It's rare, and it's dependent on what type of insurance you have. The responsibility for your health therefore is in your lap. Who would you rather have the responsibility for your health, your self or Gordon Brown?
Since the British in general do not have easy access to US skilled visas, this is actually not the case. A significant portion of the British who work in the US are close to minimum wage laborers. For the rest of Europe that is not the case, and it is not due to the cost of relocation, a ticket to the US is not that much more expensive than a ticket through the Chunnel. The reason is US immigration policy. If you are not a brain-drain candidate it is really hard to come to the US legally.
Which is how you create a nation of social welfare clients. If that is what you want, that is OK. Without a huge pile of gold in your back garden, or oil just off your coast, you are screwed.
For those who don't particularly enjoy living in a country populated by self-satisfied social welfare clients who think that they are the center of the universe, driving around in their Toyota Corollas and taking vacations in exotic locations like Grand Canaria, it isn't so nice. But that is just a matter of opinion and preference of course. I prefer to live in a country where people who excel are actually rewarded, not ridiculed.
No, there isn't. There are many facets of most political systems. The tendency is that more capitalism, that is more freedom for economic interaction, leads to better lives for people in any country. Sweden has some social policies and some heavy capitalism. The mix in Sweden is not bad at all, but Sweden, as the rest of Europe, has some serious structural problems that needs fixing in the next few years. Retirement being one of them.
So when a European country falls on its ass due to bad policy it is the fault of the US? So are you seriously implying that the bad economic policies of the current government under The Bushman is not the fault of The Bushman, but the fault of the countries lending the US money? What kind of argument is that?
Again, are you serious? The fact that The League of Nations was unable to find their dumb asses without a map was the fault of the US isolationist policy at the time? Is the reason that the UN of today is such a pile of dog dung the fault of Switzerland then? Is it Norway's fault that the EU is a corrupt, inefficient and incapable of anything more meaningful than wasting taxpayer money? BTW, what the hell is the UK, a reasonably well-functioning country doing in the dysfunctional club of misfits that is the EU anyway?
Again, are you effing serious or just making jokes? Are you blaming the US for not taking part in a war that was entirely outside of the US? Why is it bad that the US didn't go to war on Germany in 1939, and also bad that the US did go to war on Iraq some 60 odd years later? From outside the war in 1939 was en internal European affair. The problems in Iraq were definitely internal, and the US had, at the time, no business in engaging in either of those campaigns. It would have been sheer lunacy for the US, given the information at the time, to join the war in 1939.
Please, if you want to blame fuckups on someone, blame it on the people who fucked up, not on the ones who decided not to take part in the fuckup. WWII was the fault of Britain, France and Germany, not the US. The pathetic aspects of the League of Nations was entirely the fault of the pathetic mandate it was given by the spineless politicians that created it. The idea of blaming everybody else for your own fuckups, but taking credit for all of your own "genius" moves is so effing American, and it makes me sick. Don't become American please. Anybody, Germany, The League of Nations, France, Britain and the US too, should take responsibility for their own actions. Blaming those who chose to stand on the sideline is pathetic in the extreme. If I watch, with fascination, as you kill your self through a spectacular set of dumb actions, I may be a bit of a shit for not stopping you, but I am still not responsible for your death.
Oh, and BTW, I am still European, not American.
If it seemed I said that, I am sorry. That is not true. The vast majority of people never migrate whether it is to their benefit or detriment. Even people who are in piss-poor situations will not migrate, even though they should. I'd recommend the comedian Carlos Mencia for a funny look at this topic. What I was attempting to put into words is that there is a significant migration from Europe to the US, and all of that migration, with minor exceptions, is what you call brain drain. This is due to the requirements for immigration from Europe created by the US government.
This is a good reason to come to the US on vacation, but not to migrate. If you migrate you'll be paid in the local currency, and its relative strength is only really relevant if you purchase imported goods. For the US this is less relevant than for most other countries, since the US has in a stroke of accidental genius made the greenback the default world currency. This means that the US is far less susceptible to currency variations than other countries. The fact that the US can also borrow money in its own currency is pure and utter genius. Imagine being able to slice your debt in half by just instituting some bad economic policies like the current administration is doing.
As I said, a stroke of genius. On part of the Americans. Bad for you. If you want a stable income rather than a fluctuating one, you should probably live in the US.
No, you probably wouldn't. The Norwegian public health care system (which I know) is one of the best in the world. Apparently even far better than the British. If you have a decent job in the US you will, in all cases except a small number of exceptions, have far better health care in the US than in Norway. If you have no job, you will have a reasonable health care system. The problem is if you have a decent job that doesn't cover your insurance (the vast majority of jobs covers it), then you are in trouble. But have no doubt, people who die in the European public health care system survive in the US private system. People who wait in queues in the European system get immediate and excellent care and help in the US.
Some ten years ago or so I passed out in my doctors office, probably due to stress and dehydration. Problem was, as I passed out the good doctor observed a spasm in my leg. This may be an indication of epilepsy or other brain problem, perhaps a beginning tumor. Best thing to do would to do a full check up. Most European doctors would not have recommended that due to the fact that it would have taken a lot of time then and it would have cost a lot of money. The minor spasm wouldn't warrant a full check-up. Interestingly, in Norway my sister in law was, at the time, waiting on the third month, for an MRI scan after a fall.
My doctor was a regular family doctor doing some of my post-immigration check up. He was not at a hospital or anything like that. My appointment was early in the morning. Probably around nine or so. By the end of that day I had finished a full check up. I had had an EEG, an MRI scan, the works. I had seen my brain in 3D and full color. In most European countries this would have taken weeks or months to arrange. Weeks and months where something nasty theoretically could have gone from bad to terrible.
Don't believe all the stories you hear about the US health care system, but don't disregard all of them either. The story of Tony Snow is an example from the bad end of the spectrum.
Things covered by my insu
Eh, the two statements are entirely unrelated. The first part of the statement was to arrest the absurd notion that there are few European immigrants in the US, when a tiny country like Ireland, with 4 million (well, a little over) gets on the list with countries like China and India. In fact, there are abotu 200 times as many Irish immigrants in the US as there are Chinese, relative to the size of the countries. Forgive me if my math is slightly off.
The second statement is just a statement of fact. The smart people are in fact leaving Europe for the US. This is not only demonstrably true, it has also been a topic of conversation in Europe for years and years. But then again, I guess you are one of those ignorant people who don't know things like this.
Are you familiar with the term "brain drain"? This is when smart people systematically leave one region to seek their fortunes in a region that is more supportive of their talents. There is a significant immigration from Europe to the US still, and the immigration consists of, as opposed to the immigration to the US from Latin America, the top talent of Europe. If you are really good at what you are doing, you will in a significant number of cases move to the US. Soccer perhaps being one of the few exceptions.
If you want to read more and get enlightened, try this article. If you would rather stay ignorant and argumentative I'd recommend you do not read the article. Your illusions will be shattered.
If you don't want to shatter your illusions by reading this article - let me enlighten you just a little bit. An example to show why talented people are leaving Europe and working in the US instead.
If you are a professor at most European universities, you have a certain salary. What subject you teach is more or less irrelevant in regards to your salary. If you teach economics your salary is about the same, with minor variations, as the salary of a history professor or a sociology professor. This is because in the European mindset your effort is what should determine your salary, not your marketability.
In the US a professor of history makes from $45,000 and up to about $80,000 or so, depending on university, experience etc. If you have a PhD of Economics and you join one of the better schools, like Yale, your starting salary is probably going to be in the $120,000 to $150,000 range. If you get tenure you'll probably go well past $200,000. In base salary. He makes two or three times as much as a professor of history. Is this fair? Yes it is. Does it mean that the smart economic students are moving to the US, yes it does.
If you finish a PhD in the US, which a lot of Europeans do, with great grades and a job offer from Cornell or Yale. How many people would move back to Europe? How many could?
How is voting for a libertarian candidate "withdrawing from the system"? Are you seriously suggesting that the only way to take part in a democracy is to vote for the two established parties? If you are, it is not surprising that our democracy is being flushed down the toilet as fast as it is.
Now this is a problem with the US, and here reform is needed. I even think the reform would be relatively easy to create. Civil lawsuits with massive pay outs are a drain on business and society as such. Change one single thing and they will go away as a problem but remain as a problem solution.
Award the cost of litigation to the defendant as a rule when he wins a civil law suit. This will curb the enthusiasm for suing everybody for ridiculous things like spilling hot coffee in your own crutch. Coffee is hot. You spill it in your crutch you are a dumbass and you take the consequences. You sue Micky D for it, and you pay Micky's court cost if you lose (which the dummy eventually did). The prospect of paying for the legal cost of someone like Micky D might make you think twice about suing.
You could even alter this practice just a little bit so that if the plaintiff can't pay, his legal counsel is required to pick up the bill. That would put a stop to the ambulance chasers pretty fast.
Problem today is that people have become smart about suing companies. They don't sue for hundreds of millions of dollars any more. They sue for smaller amounts so that it is more cost efficient for the company to pay than to fight. In a civilized society that is called extortion, and would be illegal. You can't ban lawsuits though, but you can make irresponsible litigation very dangerous.
As someone else pointed out, Ireland is Europe. Not only is Ireland Europe, but Ireland has about 4 million people in it. Think about that. If the Chinese migrated to the US in the same numbers that the Irish do, there would have been about 300,000,000 Irish immigrants in the US. Going by the number of excellent Irish pubs over here, it some times seems like that is the case, but still.
Now, more importantly, who leaves Europe for the US? The smart people. Leaving the mediocre behind.