How does it make sense to ban a functional technology? I prefer the light given off by an incandescent bulb. If it uses more energy, it's my prerogative to pay for it. I don't see why the government should have a hand in deciding what kind of bulb I buy. The free market should dictate that.
I agree with this, and I code better now than I did a few years ago. But I still maintain the work I did as a contractor a few years ago and even if some sections are messy it is easy enough to understand and modify without rippling bugs throughout the system.
The code I am supporting now is often "Over organized". Several modules are created to accomplished simple tasks, several layers of functions have to be sifted through to get to the meat of what is going on, many of those functions being only a few lines long and there are MACROS galore, continuously renaming a function to something else.
In comparing the two, there's lessons I've learned about good coding practices, like consistency in naming things. But another thing I've learned is that creating a new function every few lines is not better for readability or maintainability and would gladly take my messy overstuffed functions any day.
I think it's too bad this is happening, although I agree with the reasons you stated. I'm 31, I got a no code tech. license when I was 16 and was using autopatches for mobile phone calls and packet radio for email before anyone cared about cell phones or the internet. I even recieved some packet broadcasts from the MIR space station with a 1/4 wave coathanger built antenna once.
Advances in technology have taken all of that excitement away now, but I still keep my 2M radio handy, because if anything catastrophic ever happens I know that will become the most important piece of tech. equipment I own.
I second this. I recently changed jobs and my old company has been asking me to screen potential replacements for months. They still can't find a good fit. I know others who have also left their positions and still have not been replaced. Even finding good contractors right now is difficult.
There may be people with technical resumes out there, but at least half of them don't know which edn of the pipe is up.
Massive Attack was the first to release a new album freely on the internet as MP3s way back in 1998. The album was Mezzanine, and is considered by most to be their best work. I don't think they asked for permission to do it either.
Unless you use Comcast or another provider which adds compression to it's HD signals, degrading the quality in a very noticable manner. The fact is that standard cable does not have the capacity to deliver true HD bandwidth. This will become more true as more HD channels come online. Want proof? Find an HD channel on cable that is also on NTSC broadcast and switch between the antenna and cable signal.
As far as I know, right now Verizon FIOS is the only provider to deliver lossless HD video. This is a big deal for anyone with a TV over 46".
In the USA, many Americans refuse to use public transportation due to class snobbery. Also, many Americans have no access to public transportation. Only in the center of major cities is public transit any good, and even then it is nothing compared to what Europe has.
I have done speed tests at several different times on my comcast service and typically do no better than 1.5Mbps. I think it is pretty misleading to advertise a 6Mbps connection and get some thing that is 1/4 of that.
Well, it is now not so hard to get a 20 Mbit connection, and that might be enough. I just signed up for FIOS, and the standard package is a 5Mbps pipe, they say that it is a garanteed 5Mb, not a peak value. They also offer a 20Mbps pipe for $10 more. It may not be so hard to trade Hi-Def movies in the near future.
Not necessarily. Cable still has to compete with satellite and if one offers a DVR with commercial skip it will have competitive advantage. Verizon FIOS has also begun to penetrate the market.
I don't understand why this comment is moderated insightful. If you don't like the DRM thrown on top of HD content and choose not to use any of it because of that, that is your choice, but do you think they will invent a new DRM free standard when this standard has already caught on? It's here to stay and you will have to go out of your way to avoid it in another couple of years. From what I can tell, it's not broken by design since the cable/satellite companies are making plenty of $$ by delivering HD content and leasing HD/DVRs and the television manufactures are also making $$ selling HDTVs. From a business standpoint, what exactly is broken?
I'm wondering if a movie can be compressed into Divx in full HD and fit on a standard DVD? If this could be done couldn't HD players be made much more cheaply? I just had to purchase a new dvd player. I almost bought a Phillips which supports Divx playback via USB hard drive. I do not know if an HD Divx file will be displayed in full HD though.
Instead I bought a Sony player which upconverts the signal first. It also conditions the signal so that virtually no pixelization can be seen on the TV. The picture on a 46" 720P set is astounding. Really, it looks close to an HD signal and I'm starting to think there isn't very much added value in the hi-def discs.
How many people will have an HDTV by 2009, when HDTVs are virtually the only tvs available at best buy and can be purchased for $500? HD is here to stay, make no mistake. I doubt there's a tv station out there that doesn't have plans in the works to transistion to HD. The masses will want HD video players, but they will only want to pay $100 for them. I have an HDTV and there's no way I'll buy an HD player until there is a winning standard and a cheap player on the market.
I used to work at Bose several years ago in one of the automotive groups. The cars we worked with had a separate fiberoptic network for the "entertainment bus". It was totally separated from engine control functions, although I'm not sure things are done that way today.
Why I Just Purchased a Rear ProjectionLCD Set
on
Plasma or LCD?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I just bought a Sony 46" LCD TV. This is not the best technology on the market. It has lower contrast than CRT or Plasma. You can't mount it on a wall. Why did I buy it? I needed a new TV and this was the best combination of size, performance and low price. It looks great for video games and for HDTV (this one supports 720P) there is just no comparison to standard def TV. Others have posted that CRT is still the cleanest looking technology, and they are right. I almost bought A CRT HDTV, but they are on their way out. It is way too heavy to move those TVs and they take up a lot of space. My advice to anyone considering a new set but is hedging on technology and price to consider the following:
- Many stations don't broadcast in HD yet - Those that do often are carrying 720P quality signals, so buying a 1080P set right now may be a waste of money - Toshiba is developing a new technology called SED, which might obsolete all existing technologies in the next few years - A flat panel is not that useful unless you are really tight on space
Given all that, spending $1300 on my 46" rear projection LCD TV was worth the money to me. And I do expect to replace it with a newer tech. in the next 4 to 5 yrs. By then, the costs of HDTVs will be much lower than they are today.
There is a buisness model for HDTV. Eventually, every consumer will have an HDTV, it will take years but it will happen. When it does and networks A and C have HD content network B will be hurting for viewers because no one will want to watch their crappy SD signal. Networks will need to switch to HD to retain viewership, not increase it.
The bulb factor is not really an issue anymore. I have a Sony Wega rear projection HDTV with an 8000 hr. bulb life. Assuming 5 hrs./day of tv watching this is 8000/5 = 1600 days which is 1600/365 = 4.38 years. The replacement bulb currently cost $150 on ebay. Guess how much it will cost in 4 yrs. Plus, getting a replacement bulb will be like getting a brand new TV.
I agree that the PS3 has much potential to be a big hit, mainly because I think Blu-Ray will win the format war. There's a lot of naysayers on slashdot who say that this drive is irrelevant and who needs hi-def anyway. It's obvious most of these people have not seen hi-def in their living room and that it blows traditional television away. Someone looking for a media center to stream stuff from their PC to the living room, a Blu Ray player and a new video game console will find this to be a good deal. Think it's too expensive? In two years when the cost of manufacturing significantly drops (along with the retail price) it will be a bargain. Especially when HDTVs will have a lot more market penetration by then and lots of customers will be hungry for a player to show off their shiny new TV. I'm sure this is the long term gamble that Sony is hoping to win on.
Go into Best Buy or Circuit City and the first thing you see on display in the AV section is a Blu Ray setup. Sony is already winning brand recognition simply because they have a cooler and more memorable name for their format. The technical differences between the two formats are nearly a moot point for most consumers, so the easy to remember cool name will win.
I find it comical that everyone waited in line overnight to get a preorder for a PS3 to sell on ebay for $3k. If there are that many people willing to pay $3k just to be the first to play a new system, then it's true that there really is a sucker born every minute.
Slashdot Mirror
How does it make sense to ban a functional technology? I prefer the light given off by an incandescent bulb. If it uses more energy, it's my prerogative to pay for it. I don't see why the government should have a hand in deciding what kind of bulb I buy. The free market should dictate that.
I agree with this, and I code better now than I did a few years ago. But I still maintain the work I did as a contractor a few years ago and even if some sections are messy it is easy enough to understand and modify without rippling bugs throughout the system.
The code I am supporting now is often "Over organized". Several modules are created to accomplished simple tasks, several layers of functions have to be sifted through to get to the meat of what is going on, many of those functions being only a few lines long and there are MACROS galore, continuously renaming a function to something else.
In comparing the two, there's lessons I've learned about good coding practices, like consistency in naming things. But another thing I've learned is that creating a new function every few lines is not better for readability or maintainability and would gladly take my messy overstuffed functions any day.
I think it's too bad this is happening, although I agree with the reasons you stated. I'm 31, I got a no code tech. license when I was 16 and was using autopatches for mobile phone calls and packet radio for email before anyone cared about cell phones or the internet. I even recieved some packet broadcasts from the MIR space station with a 1/4 wave coathanger built antenna once.
Advances in technology have taken all of that excitement away now, but I still keep my 2M radio handy, because if anything catastrophic ever happens I know that will become the most important piece of tech. equipment I own.
How long until the first page of TI's latest chip spec gets inserted with an ad while downloading?
I think Geico has found some of these humans.
I second this. I recently changed jobs and my old company has been asking me to screen potential replacements for months. They still can't find a good fit. I know others who have also left their positions and still have not been replaced. Even finding good contractors right now is difficult.
There may be people with technical resumes out there, but at least half of them don't know which edn of the pipe is up.
Massive Attack was the first to release a new album freely on the internet as MP3s way back in 1998. The album was Mezzanine, and is considered by most to be their best work. I don't think they asked for permission to do it either.
Unless you use Comcast or another provider which adds compression to it's HD signals, degrading the quality in a very noticable manner. The fact is that standard cable does not have the capacity to deliver true HD bandwidth. This will become more true as more HD channels come online. Want proof? Find an HD channel on cable that is also on NTSC broadcast and switch between the antenna and cable signal.
As far as I know, right now Verizon FIOS is the only provider to deliver lossless HD video. This is a big deal for anyone with a TV over 46".
When will there be a store which actually has a Wii for sale to go along with their fancy store display?
I have done speed tests at several different times on my comcast service and typically do no better than 1.5Mbps. I think it is pretty misleading to advertise a 6Mbps connection and get some thing that is 1/4 of that.
It may be 2007, but it's starting to feel a lot like 1984.
Well, it is now not so hard to get a 20 Mbit connection, and that might be enough. I just signed up for FIOS, and the standard package is a 5Mbps pipe, they say that it is a garanteed 5Mb, not a peak value. They also offer a 20Mbps pipe for $10 more. It may not be so hard to trade Hi-Def movies in the near future.
Not necessarily. Cable still has to compete with satellite and if one offers a DVR with commercial skip it will have competitive advantage. Verizon FIOS has also begun to penetrate the market.
I don't understand why this comment is moderated insightful. If you don't like the DRM thrown on top of HD content and choose not to use any of it because of that, that is your choice, but do you think they will invent a new DRM free standard when this standard has already caught on? It's here to stay and you will have to go out of your way to avoid it in another couple of years. From what I can tell, it's not broken by design since the cable/satellite companies are making plenty of $$ by delivering HD content and leasing HD/DVRs and the television manufactures are also making $$ selling HDTVs. From a business standpoint, what exactly is broken?
I'm wondering if a movie can be compressed into Divx in full HD and fit on a standard DVD? If this could be done couldn't HD players be made much more cheaply? I just had to purchase a new dvd player. I almost bought a Phillips which supports Divx playback via USB hard drive. I do not know if an HD Divx file will be displayed in full HD though.
Instead I bought a Sony player which upconverts the signal first. It also conditions the signal so that virtually no pixelization can be seen on the TV. The picture on a 46" 720P set is astounding. Really, it looks close to an HD signal and I'm starting to think there isn't very much added value in the hi-def discs.
How many people will have an HDTV by 2009, when HDTVs are virtually the only tvs available at best buy and can be purchased for $500? HD is here to stay, make no mistake. I doubt there's a tv station out there that doesn't have plans in the works to transistion to HD. The masses will want HD video players, but they will only want to pay $100 for them. I have an HDTV and there's no way I'll buy an HD player until there is a winning standard and a cheap player on the market.
I used to work at Bose several years ago in one of the automotive groups. The cars we worked with had a separate fiberoptic network for the "entertainment bus". It was totally separated from engine control functions, although I'm not sure things are done that way today.
I just bought a Sony 46" LCD TV. This is not the best technology on the market. It has lower contrast than CRT or Plasma. You can't mount it on a wall. Why did I buy it? I needed a new TV and this was the best combination of size, performance and low price. It looks great for video games and for HDTV (this one supports 720P) there is just no comparison to standard def TV. Others have posted that CRT is still the cleanest looking technology, and they are right. I almost bought A CRT HDTV, but they are on their way out. It is way too heavy to move those TVs and they take up a lot of space. My advice to anyone considering a new set but is hedging on technology and price to consider the following:
- Many stations don't broadcast in HD yet
- Those that do often are carrying 720P quality signals, so buying a 1080P set right now may be a waste of money
- Toshiba is developing a new technology called SED, which might obsolete all existing technologies in the next few years
- A flat panel is not that useful unless you are really tight on space
Given all that, spending $1300 on my 46" rear projection LCD TV was worth the money to me. And I do expect to replace it with a newer tech. in the next 4 to 5 yrs. By then, the costs of HDTVs will be much lower than they are today.
How much did the Atari 2600 cost when it first came out?
There is a buisness model for HDTV. Eventually, every consumer will have an HDTV, it will take years but it will happen. When it does and networks A and C have HD content network B will be hurting for viewers because no one will want to watch their crappy SD signal. Networks will need to switch to HD to retain viewership, not increase it.
The bulb factor is not really an issue anymore. I have a Sony Wega rear projection HDTV with an 8000 hr. bulb life. Assuming 5 hrs./day of tv watching this is 8000/5 = 1600 days which is 1600/365 = 4.38 years. The replacement bulb currently cost $150 on ebay. Guess how much it will cost in 4 yrs. Plus, getting a replacement bulb will be like getting a brand new TV.
I agree that the PS3 has much potential to be a big hit, mainly because I think Blu-Ray will win the format war. There's a lot of naysayers on slashdot who say that this drive is irrelevant and who needs hi-def anyway. It's obvious most of these people have not seen hi-def in their living room and that it blows traditional television away. Someone looking for a media center to stream stuff from their PC to the living room, a Blu Ray player and a new video game console will find this to be a good deal. Think it's too expensive? In two years when the cost of manufacturing significantly drops (along with the retail price) it will be a bargain. Especially when HDTVs will have a lot more market penetration by then and lots of customers will be hungry for a player to show off their shiny new TV. I'm sure this is the long term gamble that Sony is hoping to win on.
Go into Best Buy or Circuit City and the first thing you see on display in the AV section is a Blu Ray setup. Sony is already winning brand recognition simply because they have a cooler and more memorable name for their format. The technical differences between the two formats are nearly a moot point for most consumers, so the easy to remember cool name will win.
I find it comical that everyone waited in line overnight to get a preorder for a PS3 to sell on ebay for $3k. If there are that many people willing to pay $3k just to be the first to play a new system, then it's true that there really is a sucker born every minute.