You've got to be fucking kidding. Apple is going to release a PDA with a headphone jack? They already have the iPod with some limited PDA-like functions. But nobody really much cares about PDAs anyway.
Most stores won't even give you back the change from a gift card purchase. It's an unnecessary layer of complexity to the entire transaction that only benefits the business.
No, it's a layer that makes you look less like an asshole when you give cash or an inappropriate gift. Gift cards are marginally less offensive than either of those things. So, they are a pretty safe bet compared to most choices. Isn't Christmas all about worshipping consumerism and unreasonable return policies, in the first place?
I should clarify my corollary - which would be (if expressed in this stupid way). If C is good enough for you, then B is just as good as C. But D is better.
So explain how Word was supposed to use Postscript as its document format when (1) Word predated Postscript, so it couldn't, and (2) Postscript is a presentation format, not suitable for editing?
Why? I never said that Postscript should be used for word processing documents. I said that Postscript and ASCII text files are very reliable and hardly ever fail in their purpose. DOC does often fail.
It just breaks? You'll have to explain that.
Unless someone has the specific version of Word available on their system, the file often breaks and doesn't open, or opens without formatting, or with a bunch of corrupt garbage. It is almost impossible to find perfectly reliable DOC converters for third-party programs. Meanwhile, text files and postscript files open just fine in thousands of third-party programs. So they are obviously more portable than DOC. If you use DOC, you limit yourself in the tools you can use reliably to Microsoft's tools. And Postscript and text and dozens of other formats work just fine on slow computers. It's not like how the format is written is the reason people use Word.
DVD is similar resolution as broadcast TV. Now does my comment make sense?
Not really, because most people are happy with standard TV.
If you think a normal DVD signal played on a TV of any reasonable size and any reasonable viewing distance is anywhere near the resolution limit of the human eye (at the foveal vision) you're crazy.
That's good, because I never said that. I was making a philosophical corollary. Which I indicated. You were the one who was saying that a lower reolution image is just as good as a higher resolution image if it is less than DVD.
Furthermore, none of this has anything to do with sampling and interpolation issues. I don't know why you even brough that up.
Right. but it's a recording that's available - even if I forget to schedule my FM tuner in my computer to make a recording of a show I like. Previously, such radio recordings were only held in archives at the station. Now we can get them in a few moments.
Have fun stumbling onto new stuff you like with that format.
Exactly! It's awesome being able to listen to radio stations that i could never get with my FM transmitter. I discover tons of new stuff for free - compared to trying to find new music I have to pay for, and know what I'mm looking for. I can find an obscure DJ who will play something I haven't heard before on local stations or in music stores (online or brick-and-mortar).
I think it's more than double the resolution. Is that not significant? If you think DVD is fine, than so is regular format TV.
Corollary: if you think DVD is crap, then so is 10,000,000,000 by 10,000,000,000 pixels. Holographic super-DVD.
In other words, your comment doesn't make a lot of sense. Saying that standard TV should make one just as happy as DVD ignores the "sweet spot' of human perception. Decreasing resolution below a certain point will rapidly decrease perceived quality. Increasing resolution above a certain point will cause no increase in perceived quality whatsoever.
In fact, one little known factor in printed high-resolution documents from bitmap files is that the results can be worse than a lower-resolution image, because of screening and interpolation problems. Similar issues exist with digital display.
You do know that men can use a vibrator just as easily as women, right? I'd say that vibrator sales are over 50% to men. They are popular among women, but I don't think they outsell the men. It's probably quite even demographically.
It's also a great document format - it makes for a very fast, flexible application which keeps up with editing even on slow systems, and degrades gracefully.
What the fuck? Care to explain any of this? What does the document format have to do with performance of editing on slow systems? how can.DOC be considered to "degrade gracefully" when it often just breaks, and Microsoft changes it all the time?
Perhaps you should investigate how word processors are written before making blanket statements about which formats they should use?
What is that supposed to mean? Word processors are supposed to help us write and publish documents. Working in publishing, I get6 a shitload of.DOC files. They are the bane of the industry. Everything else works great - but the.DOC format regularly breaks and screws things up. And Word itself is horribly bloated and slow. I'm not sure where you are getting this "runs great on slower computers" shit. You can get full-blown Desktop Publishing applications, with integral word processor, that perform better on old hardware than Word.
What's the standard against which you compare that you can say facturally that it's mediocre?
The document format. Somehow text files work great, and we've had useful standards in publishing like Postscript for a long time. The.DOC format makes Microsoft Word practically useless. that's not even getting into how laughably horrible it is to use. Open Office isn't the only alternative to Word, you know. Why does it matter if some "open Office" software tries to copy Microsoft, when other companies have been making superior publishing and word processing tools to Word for years? And how can anyone not see the mediocrity in other software in Office like Powerpoint?
Bill Gates has given more to charity than anyone EVER.
but he gets to decide which charities. I want money to go to other charities. but Gates has screwed the world economy and made everyone else poorer, so Gates has the money as a result of extortion. It's like a bank robber getting off scott-free just because he gives a few twenties to orphans, while planning his next murder and raping spree.
When you set it to the highest level, it takes a while to stabilize at the new, higher, temperature. When you brought it back to 0, it took a while to stabilize again.
So, why don't they design it to mitigate that effect?
I'd love one of these things, but I don't want to build a new computer to use it.
I'm afraid that's the price you have to pay. In this case the system should be designed around the display, it's not something you just want to "add on." It also makes sense to invest in mounting hardware like articulated arms.
Dual-display is much more economical and easier for most users. But if you want huge displays, then you have to pay for it. If you are going to cut corners on such a system, you are really wasting money that would be spent upgrading other components, or reconfiguring your work room.
People who do graphics work? people who don't want to sit 10 feet away from their display? People who want high resolution? People who don't want shadows falling over their work when the cat gets in the way. People who don't want to sit in the semi-dark to do their work.
If by "restriction" you mean "will be able to watch high def DVDs", then yeah, sure.
"High Def DVDs" as currently planned, should be rejected by the market and scrapped, anyway. I don't see how they are going to stop people from playing their existing DVDs. Not enough people care about HD to cause people to buy them instead of SD DVDs.
But you have to zoom in to see detail. Trust me, it's worth having a system that can either rotate to portrait orientation - or is big enough to display DTP documents at a larger magnification. Or at least dual monitors so you can get your toolboxes off the layout area and have a clear view.
Even using a single 23" gets annoying when dealing with larger documents.
Slashdot Mirror
And it runs on AA batteries? What the hell?
No, it's a layer that makes you look less like an asshole when you give cash or an inappropriate gift. Gift cards are marginally less offensive than either of those things. So, they are a pretty safe bet compared to most choices. Isn't Christmas all about worshipping consumerism and unreasonable return policies, in the first place?
So, who are these other, miscellaneous download retailers? How do their figures break down as a part of the 20 million?
I should clarify my corollary - which would be (if expressed in this stupid way). If C is good enough for you, then B is just as good as C. But D is better.
No, it was that if B is good enough for you, then A is just as good as B. But C is better.
In other words, there is no difference between any two things less than C.
It follows from this statement:
"If you think DVD is fine, than so is regular format TV."
Why? I never said that Postscript should be used for word processing documents. I said that Postscript and ASCII text files are very reliable and hardly ever fail in their purpose. DOC does often fail.
It just breaks? You'll have to explain that.
Unless someone has the specific version of Word available on their system, the file often breaks and doesn't open, or opens without formatting, or with a bunch of corrupt garbage. It is almost impossible to find perfectly reliable DOC converters for third-party programs. Meanwhile, text files and postscript files open just fine in thousands of third-party programs. So they are obviously more portable than DOC. If you use DOC, you limit yourself in the tools you can use reliably to Microsoft's tools. And Postscript and text and dozens of other formats work just fine on slow computers. It's not like how the format is written is the reason people use Word.
Not really, because most people are happy with standard TV.
If you think a normal DVD signal played on a TV of any reasonable size and any reasonable viewing distance is anywhere near the resolution limit of the human eye (at the foveal vision) you're crazy.
That's good, because I never said that. I was making a philosophical corollary. Which I indicated. You were the one who was saying that a lower reolution image is just as good as a higher resolution image if it is less than DVD.
Furthermore, none of this has anything to do with sampling and interpolation issues. I don't know why you even brough that up.
Think about it. Try using the gray matter.
Good point! I never miss CIA brainwashing broadcasts, nor Steve Jobs' keynotes. All available on my iPod.
Right. but it's a recording that's available - even if I forget to schedule my FM tuner in my computer to make a recording of a show I like. Previously, such radio recordings were only held in archives at the station. Now we can get them in a few moments.
Have fun stumbling onto new stuff you like with that format.
Exactly! It's awesome being able to listen to radio stations that i could never get with my FM transmitter. I discover tons of new stuff for free - compared to trying to find new music I have to pay for, and know what I'mm looking for. I can find an obscure DJ who will play something I haven't heard before on local stations or in music stores (online or brick-and-mortar).
Solution: don't buy a HDTV set or disc player.
Corollary: if you think DVD is crap, then so is 10,000,000,000 by 10,000,000,000 pixels. Holographic super-DVD.
In other words, your comment doesn't make a lot of sense. Saying that standard TV should make one just as happy as DVD ignores the "sweet spot' of human perception. Decreasing resolution below a certain point will rapidly decrease perceived quality. Increasing resolution above a certain point will cause no increase in perceived quality whatsoever.
In fact, one little known factor in printed high-resolution documents from bitmap files is that the results can be worse than a lower-resolution image, because of screening and interpolation problems. Similar issues exist with digital display.
Maybe the system fails after the 20 test rehearsals?
WTF? The DVD standard includes both lossy and lossless audio codecs. So your point is not true.
What the hell is your use of the "at" symbol instead of an "a" all about? Who is cr, and why is he/she/it at ppy?
You do know that men can use a vibrator just as easily as women, right? I'd say that vibrator sales are over 50% to men. They are popular among women, but I don't think they outsell the men. It's probably quite even demographically.
So what? Word is an application, not a standard.
It's also a great document format - it makes for a very fast, flexible application which keeps up with editing even on slow systems, and degrades gracefully.
What the fuck? Care to explain any of this? What does the document format have to do with performance of editing on slow systems? how can .DOC be considered to "degrade gracefully" when it often just breaks, and Microsoft changes it all the time?
Perhaps you should investigate how word processors are written before making blanket statements about which formats they should use?
What is that supposed to mean? Word processors are supposed to help us write and publish documents. Working in publishing, I get6 a shitload of .DOC files. They are the bane of the industry. Everything else works great - but the .DOC format regularly breaks and screws things up. And Word itself is horribly bloated and slow. I'm not sure where you are getting this "runs great on slower computers" shit. You can get full-blown Desktop Publishing applications, with integral word processor, that perform better on old hardware than Word.
But what if he gives it away to people who do bad things with the money?
The document format. Somehow text files work great, and we've had useful standards in publishing like Postscript for a long time. The .DOC format makes Microsoft Word practically useless. that's not even getting into how laughably horrible it is to use. Open Office isn't the only alternative to Word, you know. Why does it matter if some "open Office" software tries to copy Microsoft, when other companies have been making superior publishing and word processing tools to Word for years? And how can anyone not see the mediocrity in other software in Office like Powerpoint?
but he gets to decide which charities. I want money to go to other charities. but Gates has screwed the world economy and made everyone else poorer, so Gates has the money as a result of extortion. It's like a bank robber getting off scott-free just because he gives a few twenties to orphans, while planning his next murder and raping spree.
Depends how far away you mount it. And what you are using it for.
So, why don't they design it to mitigate that effect?
I'm afraid that's the price you have to pay. In this case the system should be designed around the display, it's not something you just want to "add on." It also makes sense to invest in mounting hardware like articulated arms.
Dual-display is much more economical and easier for most users. But if you want huge displays, then you have to pay for it. If you are going to cut corners on such a system, you are really wasting money that would be spent upgrading other components, or reconfiguring your work room.
People who do graphics work? people who don't want to sit 10 feet away from their display? People who want high resolution? People who don't want shadows falling over their work when the cat gets in the way. People who don't want to sit in the semi-dark to do their work.
"High Def DVDs" as currently planned, should be rejected by the market and scrapped, anyway. I don't see how they are going to stop people from playing their existing DVDs. Not enough people care about HD to cause people to buy them instead of SD DVDs.
Even using a single 23" gets annoying when dealing with larger documents.