You'd never have to charge your wireless mouse, but then you'd gain a cord back. Cord, never have to charge it... hmm, sounds just like a corded mouse to me:-)
99% of all "build your own home theater PC" articles think that interlacing is something to discard or throw away. Do that with actual video material (not film, but real video) and you lose half the temporal information. I don't care how much you post-process, you can't get back fluid motion if you threw it away at some point in the pipeline. Everything looks like a 30fps "computer video".
For the uninformed, true interlaced video contains 50 (PAL) or 60 (NTSC) *different* images per second. Don't believe me? Do this test:
- Videotape a live sporting event with lots of motion - Watch the videotape on a real television (not your viewfinder, not a computer -- a real TV) - Dump that video using your favorite home-grown MythTV or whatever box - Watch the final end video on a real television
If it looks "stuttery" or "weird", then congratulations, you've just mangled your video.
Re:I know it's covered in the FAQ, but still...
on
Serenity Opens Today
·
· Score: 1
That's incredibly short-sighted -- yes, money will go to the suits, etc. but I am going this weekend so that I can contribute to the opening-weekend numbers, so that the movie will be successful, so that it will make a profit, so that JOSS CAN MAKE MORE! Which is what all of us really want, you dumbass!
So instead of boycotting what you don't like, maybe you could support what you do like?
While I don't feel like ripping DVDs, I rip every single one of my CDs.
Well, it doesn't make sense to rip DVDs to save space because they are already lossy -- ripping them to hard drive might make sense, although the drive might need to be quite big in order for the drive to take up less space than the DVDs would stacked on top of each other:-)
CDs, on the other hand, can be reduced 2:1 lossless and 10:1 without any perceptual loss, so it makes perfect sense to rip those to save space.
Here's my odd take: I must be the only person on the planet to switch to VI *from* emacs. I learned it when stuck on a server that didn't have emacs, and I was so impressed at how much faster (ie. less effort to perform complex tasks) VI was over emacs that I just stopped using emacs.
However, this may have been ingrained at an early age -- In 1986 I started playing a PC port of Hack, which used... wait for it... VI h-j-k-l movement keys. It wasn't until a few years after switching to VI and picking up Hack again (still haven't finished it!!) that I realized the coincidence.
At what point did you think ReplayTVs weren't made any more? The company isn't going anywhere, the units are still made and sold... Why do you think it's no longer being made?
Nice long paragraph, but nowhere do you explain why it is better to buy the more inferior product.
I don't care about pretty GUIs or who was first to market -- I want a cheap unit that works well, and dammit, ReplayTV is that unit. It's almost ludicrous how much better ReplayTV is than TiVo, and that's not "mac vs. ibm" advocacy BS, it really is the factual truth. It's cheaper, easier to hack, and has more features. So why should I buy TiVo again?
Nope. Just one more good reason to bite the bullet, sit down, and buy a ReplayTV box. NONE and I mean NONE of this has ever been a problem with ReplayTV units. They cost less, have embedded ethernet ports you can use free Java software to suck shows off of the unit with, have semi-automatic (newer) or automatic (older) commercial skip... the list goes on and on. You'll pay less for a ReplayTV unit than a MythTV box.
Seriously. I hide holiday and birthday presents in unused case space. My wife/kids would never even *think* of looking *inside my machines* for *any reason* as they aren't computer-savvy.
Yes, I make sure nothing I put in there can melt/burn/dissolve/explode;)
As a father of two boys, 8 and 6, I always screen whatever movie or show or game they're going to watch/play. This is because, in my experience, the ratings are usually too lenient! For example, a recent Justice League Unlimited story arc (awesome show, btw) had stuff that went above and beyond typical "cartoon violence": Extended torture scenes of someone bound to a table; mutation of a human while he screams in agony; explicit death declarations ("I'm going to kill you", "watch you die", etc.) So what was the rating on this show? Y7! And this wasn't a mistake; they rated the entire series Y7. Would you want your 7-yr-old to watch someone getting tortured while he screams in pain and begs for mercy? What moron on a ratings board thought that torture was an acceptable concept for 7-yr-olds to experience?!
I should also point out that some ratings are too harsh. For example, The Dark Crystal and Tron are PG movies but I let my 8 and 6 yr old watch them because, hey, they're awesome movies:-) And just to be sure, I always watch a new film or play a new game with them the first time.
I am not a religious conservative nut -- I just don't want my kids to be psychologically damaged in their early years because I exposed them to inappropriate material for children. Believe me, when they turn 14 or 15, I'm very much looking forward to introducing them to some of my favorite movies, like Aliens or Terminator 2:-)
Yes, but worse it sounds very much like Ogg advocacy by reporting positive over negative. For example, would this have been a slashdot story if it was reported that MP3s account for 87.7% of all music bittorrent traffic?:-)
I've been reading Slashdot since its inception, and only in the last two years have I been noticing an upsurge in hearing myself say, "THIS is a headline?":-/
Sorry, but if you could see pixels, then the resolution was LOWER than that of film.
If I want to see pixels when I watch a movie, I'll download a crappy divx rip. When I pay $8 to see a movie, I want a decent experience for my $8, and seeing pixels doesn't cut it.
Sorry, but no matter how clear, bright, and judder-free a digital projection is, the resolution still isn't there. I go to movies to inundate my senses with sound and light, to immerse me into a work of fiction. When you can clearly see video scanlines (ala Star Wars Episode II), the illusion is ruined.
Cineon resolution for 2.21:1 film prints is 4096x1888. Wake me up when digital projection can equal that.
First post! (Always wanted to say that) But in reality, isn't this the same treatment for severe cases of Parkinson's? Have those patients shown mood changes as well?
XP cannot run on a 486 because XP requires the CPUID instruction, only available on Pentiums.
(Okay, it is available on *SOME* 486s... I think the 486 DX4/100 has it. But your garden-variety 486/66 will not have that x86 opcode implemented, so XP won't run.)
In our house we have a simple system: I program the DVR, and she chooses what to watch when we sit down together. That way we're both watching something that we want: I only program the DVR with shows that would appeal to me.
"Doesn't seem right" doesn't make it wrong. It *seems* wrong, but isn't. They spelled it Damacy in the title, in the game, in the manual, on the cover, and everywhere else. It's Damacy.
This technique is not new; people have been doing this for over a decade with RealAudio streams. Until people require decryption hardware in the speakers themselves, there will always be a way to divert the stream.
Sorry, but no matter how good the home theater is, I'd rather watch a movie in 6144x4096 (Cineon resolution used for the last Matrix film) on a 120-**foot** screen than 1080p on a 120-inch screen.
I go to movies to ESCAPE reality. It's nearly impossible for me to escape reality when I'm sitting in my own home.
There is a significant lack of meat in the Tom's Hardware article, and lots of cream puff. Tom's Hardware continues to get their video articles wrong year after year, and this article continues the trend by having the report compare DivX5 to DivX6 as like zipping up a D5.AVI and having it be the same size as D6. That is incorrect on so many levels that you can't take the rest of the article seriously. Even the interview with "Gej" is vague and not even close to having any technical meat in it.
Agreed. I think it says something when the only episode in the entire run of Enterprise that actually got me yelling "Yeah!" and getting out of my seat was the LAST ONE (specifically, when Riker shows himself in holocharacter, then ending the program -- I had no idea it was coming). The scene in ten-forward also generated the same amount of enthusiasm. Even though the actors were noticably older (it has been over a decade, to be fair), I was -- dare I out myself -- actually giddy watching it.
I think it says volumes when the best episode of Enterprise takes place during some other series' show.
Slashdot Mirror
You'd never have to charge your wireless mouse, but then you'd gain a cord back. Cord, never have to charge it... hmm, sounds just like a corded mouse to me :-)
99% of all "build your own home theater PC" articles think that interlacing is something to discard or throw away. Do that with actual video material (not film, but real video) and you lose half the temporal information. I don't care how much you post-process, you can't get back fluid motion if you threw it away at some point in the pipeline. Everything looks like a 30fps "computer video".
For the uninformed, true interlaced video contains 50 (PAL) or 60 (NTSC) *different* images per second. Don't believe me? Do this test:
- Videotape a live sporting event with lots of motion
- Watch the videotape on a real television (not your viewfinder, not a computer -- a real TV)
- Dump that video using your favorite home-grown MythTV or whatever box
- Watch the final end video on a real television
If it looks "stuttery" or "weird", then congratulations, you've just mangled your video.
That's incredibly short-sighted -- yes, money will go to the suits, etc. but I am going this weekend so that I can contribute to the opening-weekend numbers, so that the movie will be successful, so that it will make a profit, so that JOSS CAN MAKE MORE! Which is what all of us really want, you dumbass!
So instead of boycotting what you don't like, maybe you could support what you do like?
While I don't feel like ripping DVDs, I rip every single one of my CDs.
Well, it doesn't make sense to rip DVDs to save space because they are already lossy -- ripping them to hard drive might make sense, although the drive might need to be quite big in order for the drive to take up less space than the DVDs would stacked on top of each other:-)
CDs, on the other hand, can be reduced 2:1 lossless and 10:1 without any perceptual loss, so it makes perfect sense to rip those to save space.
Here's my odd take: I must be the only person on the planet to switch to VI *from* emacs. I learned it when stuck on a server that didn't have emacs, and I was so impressed at how much faster (ie. less effort to perform complex tasks) VI was over emacs that I just stopped using emacs.
However, this may have been ingrained at an early age -- In 1986 I started playing a PC port of Hack, which used... wait for it... VI h-j-k-l movement keys. It wasn't until a few years after switching to VI and picking up Hack again (still haven't finished it!!) that I realized the coincidence.
At what point did you think ReplayTVs weren't made any more? The company isn't going anywhere, the units are still made and sold... Why do you think it's no longer being made?
Nice long paragraph, but nowhere do you explain why it is better to buy the more inferior product.
I don't care about pretty GUIs or who was first to market -- I want a cheap unit that works well, and dammit, ReplayTV is that unit. It's almost ludicrous how much better ReplayTV is than TiVo, and that's not "mac vs. ibm" advocacy BS, it really is the factual truth. It's cheaper, easier to hack, and has more features. So why should I buy TiVo again?
Nope. Just one more good reason to bite the bullet, sit down, and buy a ReplayTV box. NONE and I mean NONE of this has ever been a problem with ReplayTV units. They cost less, have embedded ethernet ports you can use free Java software to suck shows off of the unit with, have semi-automatic (newer) or automatic (older) commercial skip... the list goes on and on. You'll pay less for a ReplayTV unit than a MythTV box.
Seriously. I hide holiday and birthday presents in unused case space. My wife/kids would never even *think* of looking *inside my machines* for *any reason* as they aren't computer-savvy.
;)
Yes, I make sure nothing I put in there can melt/burn/dissolve/explode
Like Avery Brooks' IBM commercial: "Where are the flying cars?! I was promised flying cars!"
I would give my left nut to get an audio or video clip of that commercial... Anyone know where a clip is for download?
As a father of two boys, 8 and 6, I always screen whatever movie or show or game they're going to watch/play. This is because, in my experience, the ratings are usually too lenient! For example, a recent Justice League Unlimited story arc (awesome show, btw) had stuff that went above and beyond typical "cartoon violence": Extended torture scenes of someone bound to a table; mutation of a human while he screams in agony; explicit death declarations ("I'm going to kill you", "watch you die", etc.) So what was the rating on this show? Y7! And this wasn't a mistake; they rated the entire series Y7. Would you want your 7-yr-old to watch someone getting tortured while he screams in pain and begs for mercy? What moron on a ratings board thought that torture was an acceptable concept for 7-yr-olds to experience?!
:-) And just to be sure, I always watch a new film or play a new game with them the first time.
:-)
I should also point out that some ratings are too harsh. For example, The Dark Crystal and Tron are PG movies but I let my 8 and 6 yr old watch them because, hey, they're awesome movies
I am not a religious conservative nut -- I just don't want my kids to be psychologically damaged in their early years because I exposed them to inappropriate material for children. Believe me, when they turn 14 or 15, I'm very much looking forward to introducing them to some of my favorite movies, like Aliens or Terminator 2
"while it fries the bread"
So now NetBSD can transmogrify a toaster into a fryer? Can it turn my piece of crap Athlon system into a dual-Xeon?
Yes, but worse it sounds very much like Ogg advocacy by reporting positive over negative. For example, would this have been a slashdot story if it was reported that MP3s account for 87.7% of all music bittorrent traffic? :-)
:-/
I've been reading Slashdot since its inception, and only in the last two years have I been noticing an upsurge in hearing myself say, "THIS is a headline?"
Sorry, but if you could see pixels, then the resolution was LOWER than that of film.
If I want to see pixels when I watch a movie, I'll download a crappy divx rip. When I pay $8 to see a movie, I want a decent experience for my $8, and seeing pixels doesn't cut it.
Sorry, but no matter how clear, bright, and judder-free a digital projection is, the resolution still isn't there. I go to movies to inundate my senses with sound and light, to immerse me into a work of fiction. When you can clearly see video scanlines (ala Star Wars Episode II), the illusion is ruined.
Cineon resolution for 2.21:1 film prints is 4096x1888. Wake me up when digital projection can equal that.
First post! (Always wanted to say that) But in reality, isn't this the same treatment for severe cases of Parkinson's? Have those patients shown mood changes as well?
"CPUs dating back to the 286 (I believe) support the CPUID instruction."
Wrong. Please actually look at some documentation or spec sheets before you guess.
XP cannot run on a 486 because XP requires the CPUID instruction, only available on Pentiums.
(Okay, it is available on *SOME* 486s... I think the 486 DX4/100 has it. But your garden-variety 486/66 will not have that x86 opcode implemented, so XP won't run.)
In our house we have a simple system: I program the DVR, and she chooses what to watch when we sit down together. That way we're both watching something that we want: I only program the DVR with shows that would appeal to me.
"Doesn't seem right" doesn't make it wrong. It *seems* wrong, but isn't. They spelled it Damacy in the title, in the game, in the manual, on the cover, and everywhere else. It's Damacy.
This technique is not new; people have been doing this for over a decade with RealAudio streams. Until people require decryption hardware in the speakers themselves, there will always be a way to divert the stream.
Sorry, but no matter how good the home theater is, I'd rather watch a movie in 6144x4096 (Cineon resolution used for the last Matrix film) on a 120-**foot** screen than 1080p on a 120-inch screen.
I go to movies to ESCAPE reality. It's nearly impossible for me to escape reality when I'm sitting in my own home.
There is a significant lack of meat in the Tom's Hardware article, and lots of cream puff. Tom's Hardware continues to get their video articles wrong year after year, and this article continues the trend by having the report compare DivX5 to DivX6 as like zipping up a D5 .AVI and having it be the same size as D6. That is incorrect on so many levels that you can't take the rest of the article seriously. Even the interview with "Gej" is vague and not even close to having any technical meat in it.
Another press release turned into "news"...
Enterprise was IMHO *not* a Star Trek series
Agreed. I think it says something when the only episode in the entire run of Enterprise that actually got me yelling "Yeah!" and getting out of my seat was the LAST ONE (specifically, when Riker shows himself in holocharacter, then ending the program -- I had no idea it was coming). The scene in ten-forward also generated the same amount of enthusiasm. Even though the actors were noticably older (it has been over a decade, to be fair), I was -- dare I out myself -- actually giddy watching it.
I think it says volumes when the best episode of Enterprise takes place during some other series' show.
Ubergeeks have a slide rule button on their keyboards.
Ubergeeks use a slide rule AS their keyboard.
I also use an abacus to calculate fractals. It works well, although the noise is quite deafening.