Also the image would have been smaller, because the current 470x370 image would have filled the WHOLE screen on a vintage 1994 computer (typically 640x480). To compensate for the smaller screen the image would have been smaller too, maybe half that size, so it only used some of the 640x480 screen. I suspect this page is intended to "representational" of the original site, not actual.
If you want actual sites, visit one of the web archives and take a look at places like www.psu.edu or www.scifi.com - you'll notice the designs were much, much simpler (and also smaller due to 14 kbit/sec modem limitations).
(checks google)
Take a look at www.midwinter.com which holds the Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5. That site is (as far as I know) still in its original 1994 configuration. It's still streamlined with minimal graphics and designed for downloading across slow 14 kbit/s modems of that era. Visiting that site is about as close as you can get to the birth of the WWW, and yet still be a "live" functioning site.
The quality of the signal affects the resolution, so that it is not fixed like digital. If you go to a more advanced standard like Laserdisc or Super VHS, then you would see 560 distinct B&W dots. And finally DVD, when viewed through analog S-video, would be about 640 viewable resolution... the maximum that NTSC can handle. ----- Some analog standards like Enhanced Definition Betamax CLAIM they can do "over 670" horizontal resolution but I don't really believe that figure (especially since it's coming from Sony).
Chroma resolution:
The color resolution on analog really sucks. On a DVD you get about 350 pixels across for the chroma resolution, but on VHS it's only 40 across. Pretty poor and the reason why third or fourth generation copies suffer from severe chroma blur.
So in summary:
VHS is *approximately* 320 horizontal x 486 visible resolution with 60 interlaced fields @ 30 frames per second.
This feels kinda like nitpicking, but incorrect is incorrect. VHS is not 320x240 per frame. It is (approximately) 320x480 per frame and 30 frames per second for NTSC.
If you display VHS on a 320x240 screen, then you are only seeing half the image (field 1 is shown; field 2 is thrown away). So VHS is double QVGA resolution, because it has the same number of frames per second (30) but twice as many scanlines (480 versus 240).
P.S. And then comcast can use the extra money collected, and lay more cabling. Perhaps even providing a second cable direct to those customers who ask for "unlimited" service.
If a company wants to expand, they need to invest money. That money has to come from somewhere. The logical choice is to get it from high-demand customers. Use them to fund your expansion.
Internet companies should charge the same way Other utility companies charge: According to usage. Since Comcast is finding it necessary to throttle connections, that indicates they are running out of bandwidth. i.e. They need to lay more cables but lack the money to do so. Therefore:
Rather than throttle P2P, youtube.com, or itunes.com, Comcast should identify their customers who download tons of information, impose a limit on those people, and then tell them, "If you go over 100 gigabytes, you will need to pay $100 a month to gain unlimited downloads." i.e. a Tier system:
If a company wants to expand, they need to invest money. That money has to come from somewhere. The logical choice is to get it from your top-tier/high-demand customers. Use them to fund your expansion.
Since Comcast is finding it necessary to throttle connections, that indicates they are running out of bandwidth. i.e. They need to lay more cables but lack the money to do so. Therefore:
Rather than throttle P2P, youtube.com, or itunes.com, Comcast should identify their customers who download tons of information, impose a limit on those people, and then tell them, "If you go over 100 gigabytes, you will need to pay $100 a month to gain unlimited downloads." i.e. a Tier system:
The more you desire to download, the more you will have to pay. Vice-versa, the less you download (me), the less you have to pay. That is entirely fair to charge customers based upon actual usage.
No such society exists except in magical non-universes (i.e. fiction). In the real-world, planets are finite, therefore resources are finite, and not everyone can live as though limits do not exist. In the real-world, there is scarcity.
There's not an infinite amount of electricity. There's not an infinite amount of internet cabling. Therefore there has to be a cost to buy these things... with a proportional amount of increase as you buy more (i.e. your monthly bill goes higher). This is common sense.
There IS a good car analogy, but you're not going to like it. Buy a Ferrari that gets 20mpg and drive 1000 miles a week. You're going to pay more because you guzzle more. Vice-versa buy the same Ferrari but only drive it once-in-a-while; maybe 10 miles a week. You're going to pay less because you guzzle less.
Internet should work the same way. The more you guzzle, the more you pay. The less you guzzle, the less you pay. Like so:
I agree, but I think you listed your ratios backwards?
Rather than throttle P2P, youtube.com, or itunes.com, Comcast should identify their customers who downloads terabytes of information, impose a limit on those people, and then tell them, "If you go over 100 gigabytes, you will need to pay $100 a month to gain unlimited downloads." i.e. a Tier system:
The more you desire to download, the more you will have to pay. Vice-versa, the less you download (me), the less you have to pay. That is entirely fair to charge customers based upon actual usage.
I like how ye use the term "only" when talking about over $1000 a year for a net connection.
Although I am well-paid I still prefer the $15 a month service.
Of course that service doesn't do much good if Comcast decides to block Bittorrent or Itunes.com, and therefore I think Comcast should be disallowed from doing that. If Comcast feels their pipes are full, let them add a higher tier, collect more money, and use that money to invest in more bandwidth. (That may mean every house has two cables running into it; oh well.)
Thanks for the clarification. I was sitting here and thinking to myself, "That can't bee right. 6-bits of color is how much my RGB Amiga 500 used in 1987 (64 colors)."
So it's 6 bits per color (red, green, or blue) to achieve 18 bits total (thousands of colors). Versus a "real" monitor that can do 24 bits total, aka millions of colors.
Yeah. Definitely false advertising. Lousy Apple. Starting to act like Microscrew.
In 1995 I was surfing the net with a 2.4 k modem. I had to select "don't load images" but it was still possible to visit my favorite sites like scifi.com even at that slow speed. If I would have had your Sporster modem (~20 times faster) I probably would have been in heaven!:-)
Today I still use a 56k modem while traveling. With image compression the 56k is almost as fast as my 700k DSL w/o compression.
I like to look at the old webpages for psu.edu and scifi.com.
Ahh simpler times. Plain text with just two or three images (resembling a newspaper). Not like today's pages that seem to take forever to load because they are so overburdened with a lot of junk.
But I'm not sure why the government is going to force me to fork over dollars to buy a product I don't want. I'm happy with the 512M RAM I have now. What kinda politician would possibly do that???
Oh wait.
I forgot about Hillary. She wants me to pay premiums ($$$) for a product that I do not want (health insurance). Just great. Thanks. I wish the government would bugger off and let me decide *for myself* whether or not I want health insurance (I don't).
I think "stealing" is an appropriate word. Infringing sounds too kind; like looting... makes it sound harmless. I prefer to calling looting as stealing, and the people who do it, thieves. ----- Anyway. If for example Stephen King spent a year of his life crafting his latest novel, and you download it for free off the internet, you've not stolen property. No physical object has been removed.
But you have stolen Mr. King's labor.
Theft of labor is a human rights violation, and I prefer not to trample on other people's rights. If I enjoy King's work (and I do) then I'm going to pay him for it, same as I get paid by my employer for my work. He deserves to be compensated for his time and effort.
Well one of the studies was published at isohunt.com - unfortunately I can not access it due to Employer censorship, so I can't provide a direct link for you. However you're welcome to visit the website yourself and read their archives.
I'm not even sure why you question the validity of these studies. "Loss leaders" have been a long-used and very effective way to promote business. That's essentially what P2P/downloading is. I've read numerous reports from 1960s/70s singers who had back catalogs with next-to-no sales, and then suddenly jumped in volume thanks to internet downloads creating a surge in customer awareness of old titles.
Downloading is a loss leader. Loss today for increased profit tomorrow.
>>>"I am in a minority of P2P/Usenet downloaders because, in my experience, most of them use it as an alternative to paying for their music by legal means."
First of all, where's your citation for this? I suspect you have none; you just made it up. Invented statistics have no validity.
Second, I USED to be one of those you describe (getting music for free) although in my day we called them "mix tapes" rather than downloads, but it's still the same thing. And there was a very good reason why I stole music: As a teenager, I had no money. Having no money means I couldn't buy CDs even if I wanted to.
Thus there's no financial impact for what I did. And no subsidy.
I didn't say it did. I said corporations are soulless/lacking morals. A corporation makes decisions based upon their own desire to increase profit. They will not fight a "hand over all emails" court order if there's no profit to gain from that fight. They follow a very simple conditional statement:
IF PROFIT INCREASES THEN FIGHTLAWSUIT == 1 ELSE HANDOVER_EMAILS = 1
Slashdot Mirror
eLion is relatively new.
It did not exist when I was a Penn State student (1997). If it's vintage, it's in style only, but in reality it's a 2000-era page.
Also the image would have been smaller, because the current 470x370 image would have filled the WHOLE screen on a vintage 1994 computer (typically 640x480). To compensate for the smaller screen the image would have been smaller too, maybe half that size, so it only used some of the 640x480 screen. I suspect this page is intended to "representational" of the original site, not actual.
If you want actual sites, visit one of the web archives and take a look at places like www.psu.edu or www.scifi.com - you'll notice the designs were much, much simpler (and also smaller due to 14 kbit/sec modem limitations).
(checks google)
Take a look at www.midwinter.com which holds the Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5. That site is (as far as I know) still in its original 1994 configuration. It's still streamlined with minimal graphics and designed for downloading across slow 14 kbit/s modems of that era. Visiting that site is about as close as you can get to the birth of the WWW, and yet still be a "live" functioning site.
Not really meaningless, just variable. VHS varies in quality depending upon the speed used. Generally speaking:
SP == 335 distinct black-and-white dots from left-to-right
EP/SLP == 305
The quality of the signal affects the resolution, so that it is not fixed like digital. If you go to a more advanced standard like Laserdisc or Super VHS, then you would see 560 distinct B&W dots. And finally DVD, when viewed through analog S-video, would be about 640 viewable resolution... the maximum that NTSC can handle. ----- Some analog standards like Enhanced Definition Betamax CLAIM they can do "over 670" horizontal resolution but I don't really believe that figure (especially since it's coming from Sony).
Chroma resolution:
The color resolution on analog really sucks. On a DVD you get about 350 pixels across for the chroma resolution, but on VHS it's only 40 across. Pretty poor and the reason why third or fourth generation copies suffer from severe chroma blur.
So in summary:
VHS is *approximately* 320 horizontal x 486 visible resolution with 60 interlaced fields @ 30 frames per second.
This feels kinda like nitpicking, but incorrect is incorrect. VHS is not 320x240 per frame. It is (approximately) 320x480 per frame and 30 frames per second for NTSC.
If you display VHS on a 320x240 screen, then you are only seeing half the image (field 1 is shown; field 2 is thrown away). So VHS is double QVGA resolution, because it has the same number of frames per second (30) but twice as many scanlines (480 versus 240).
P.S. And then comcast can use the extra money collected, and lay more cabling. Perhaps even providing a second cable direct to those customers who ask for "unlimited" service.
If a company wants to expand, they need to invest money.
That money has to come from somewhere.
The logical choice is to get it from high-demand customers.
Use them to fund your expansion.
Internet companies should charge the same way Other utility companies charge: According to usage. Since Comcast is finding it necessary to throttle connections, that indicates they are running out of bandwidth. i.e. They need to lay more cables but lack the money to do so. Therefore:
Rather than throttle P2P, youtube.com, or itunes.com, Comcast should identify their customers who download tons of information, impose a limit on those people, and then tell them, "If you go over 100 gigabytes, you will need to pay $100 a month to gain unlimited downloads." i.e. a Tier system:
$15 == 20 gig
$30 == 50 gig
$45 == 100 gig
$100 == unlimted
If a company wants to expand, they need to invest money. That money has to come from somewhere. The logical choice is to get it from your top-tier/high-demand customers. Use them to fund your expansion.
Since Comcast is finding it necessary to throttle connections, that indicates they are running out of bandwidth. i.e. They need to lay more cables but lack the money to do so. Therefore:
Rather than throttle P2P, youtube.com, or itunes.com, Comcast should identify their customers who download tons of information, impose a limit on those people, and then tell them, "If you go over 100 gigabytes, you will need to pay $100 a month to gain unlimited downloads." i.e. a Tier system:
$15 == 20 gig
$30 == 50 gig
$45 == 100 gig
$100 == unlimted
The more you desire to download, the more you will have to pay. Vice-versa, the less you download (me), the less you have to pay. That is entirely fair to charge customers based upon actual usage.
Society of plenty?????
No such society exists except in magical non-universes (i.e. fiction). In the real-world, planets are finite, therefore resources are finite, and not everyone can live as though limits do not exist. In the real-world, there is scarcity.
There's not an infinite amount of electricity.
There's not an infinite amount of internet cabling.
Therefore there has to be a cost to buy these things... with a proportional amount of increase as you buy more (i.e. your monthly bill goes higher). This is common sense.
There IS a good car analogy, but you're not going to like it. Buy a Ferrari that gets 20mpg and drive 1000 miles a week. You're going to pay more because you guzzle more. Vice-versa buy the same Ferrari but only drive it once-in-a-while; maybe 10 miles a week. You're going to pay less because you guzzle less.
Internet should work the same way. The more you guzzle, the more you pay. The less you guzzle, the less you pay.
Like so:
$15 == 20 gig
$30 == 50 gig
$45 == 100 gig
$100 == unlimted
That is entirely fair to charge customers based upon actual usage. And a FAR better solution than throttling P2P, youtube.com, or itunes.com.
I agree, but I think you listed your ratios backwards?
Rather than throttle P2P, youtube.com, or itunes.com, Comcast should identify their customers who downloads terabytes of information, impose a limit on those people, and then tell them, "If you go over 100 gigabytes, you will need to pay $100 a month to gain unlimited downloads." i.e. a Tier system:
$15 == 20 gig
$30 == 50 gig
$45 == 100 gig
$100 == unlimted
The more you desire to download, the more you will have to pay. Vice-versa, the less you download (me), the less you have to pay. That is entirely fair to charge customers based upon actual usage.
I like how ye use the term "only" when talking about over $1000 a year for a net connection.
Although I am well-paid I still prefer the $15 a month service.
Of course that service doesn't do much good if Comcast decides to block Bittorrent or Itunes.com, and therefore I think Comcast should be disallowed from doing that. If Comcast feels their pipes are full, let them add a higher tier, collect more money, and use that money to invest in more bandwidth. (That may mean every house has two cables running into it; oh well.)
Isn't the proper term "sub-pixel"? (wherein 3 R, G, or B subpixels make a whole pixel)?
(just curious)
Thanks for the clarification. I was sitting here and thinking to myself, "That can't bee right. 6-bits of color is how much my RGB Amiga 500 used in 1987 (64 colors)."
So it's 6 bits per color (red, green, or blue) to achieve 18 bits total (thousands of colors). Versus a "real" monitor that can do 24 bits total, aka millions of colors.
Yeah. Definitely false advertising.
Lousy Apple.
Starting to act like Microscrew.
In 1994 you probably though 28.8kbit was fast.
:-)
In 1995 I was surfing the net with a 2.4 k modem. I had to select "don't load images" but it was still possible to visit my favorite sites like scifi.com even at that slow speed. If I would have had your Sporster modem (~20 times faster) I probably would have been in heaven!
Today I still use a 56k modem while traveling. With image compression the 56k is almost as fast as my 700k DSL w/o compression.
Read the First Post again.
P.S.
Worst example: imdb.com - Why does this site insist upon loading 1000 K of flash movie on every page??? Grrr. Not dialup friendly.
I like to look at the old webpages for psu.edu and scifi.com.
Ahh simpler times. Plain text with just two or three images (resembling a newspaper). Not like today's pages that seem to take forever to load because they are so overburdened with a lot of junk.
True but where is the integrity? Pretending to be an individual when your Uncle Sam Blog is actually many individuals is deceitful.
Cute. :-)
But I'm not sure why the government is going to force me to fork over dollars to buy a product I don't want. I'm happy with the 512M RAM I have now. What kinda politician would possibly do that???
Oh wait.
I forgot about Hillary. She wants me to pay premiums ($$$) for a product that I do not want (health insurance). Just great. Thanks. I wish the government would bugger off and let me decide *for myself* whether or not I want health insurance (I don't).
I think "stealing" is an appropriate word. Infringing sounds too kind; like looting... makes it sound harmless. I prefer to calling looting as stealing, and the people who do it, thieves. ----- Anyway. If for example Stephen King spent a year of his life crafting his latest novel, and you download it for free off the internet, you've not stolen property. No physical object has been removed.
But you have stolen Mr. King's labor.
Theft of labor is a human rights violation, and I prefer not to trample on other people's rights. If I enjoy King's work (and I do) then I'm going to pay him for it, same as I get paid by my employer for my work. He deserves to be compensated for his time and effort.
Well one of the studies was published at isohunt.com - unfortunately I can not access it due to Employer censorship, so I can't provide a direct link for you. However you're welcome to visit the website yourself and read their archives.
I'm not even sure why you question the validity of these studies. "Loss leaders" have been a long-used and very effective way to promote business. That's essentially what P2P/downloading is. I've read numerous reports from 1960s/70s singers who had back catalogs with next-to-no sales, and then suddenly jumped in volume thanks to internet downloads creating a surge in customer awareness of old titles.
Downloading is a loss leader.
Loss today for increased profit tomorrow.
>>>"I am in a minority of P2P/Usenet downloaders because, in my experience, most of them use it as an alternative to paying for their music by legal means."
First of all, where's your citation for this? I suspect you have none; you just made it up. Invented statistics have no validity.
Second, I USED to be one of those you describe (getting music for free) although in my day we called them "mix tapes" rather than downloads, but it's still the same thing. And there was a very good reason why I stole music: As a teenager, I had no money. Having no money means I couldn't buy CDs even if I wanted to.
Thus there's no financial impact for what I did.
And no subsidy.
VHS is actually double that resolution (320 across x 486 scanlines).
Thanks for the info on the HD Projectors.
Can I connect this thing to my HD DVD player? At $300 it's cheaper than buying a real 40 inch screen.
>>>"Being incorporated doesn't make you evil."
I didn't say it did. I said corporations are soulless/lacking morals. A corporation makes decisions based upon their own desire to increase profit. They will not fight a "hand over all emails" court order if there's no profit to gain from that fight. They follow a very simple conditional statement:
IF PROFIT INCREASES THEN FIGHTLAWSUIT == 1
ELSE HANDOVER_EMAILS = 1
Cold. Calculating. Corporation.