The reason why I mentioned 540p is that monitors that can do 1920x1080 @ 30hz aren't quite the widest spread, so I suggest using the visual equivalent or 960x540 @ 60hz, so you can try doing it on equipment that can support it.
Almost to the point of necromancy, by now, but interlaced modes are not the "visual equivalent" of a non-interlaced mode with half the resolution in each direction and double the refresh rate. They're not even the "visual equivalent" of non-interlaced modes with half the vertical resolution, the same horizontal resolution, and double the refresh rate, though that's a closer parallel.
As to whether the market place thinks it's worth it or not where is the plethora of TV's 30" that support HDTV resolutions?
30" is an unusual TV size; there are a vast array of 32" HDTVs, both LCD and CRT, and quite a few smaller ones, as well.
(there are the little LCD displays that do, but they are more of a rebranded computer monitor than anything else, and they don't really run native HDTV res they down res it to most often XGA).
More often 1360x768 or 1366x768 WXGA (and since that format became popular with TVs, I'd rather say that the computer monitors in those formats are rebranded LCD TVs, rather than vice versa, but, whatever), which, while less resolution than 1080p/i, more than 720p (which is also an HDTV resolution), and plenty enough to, even at their sizes, show a huge jump in quality compared to 480i/p SDTV resolutions.
Is there a 19" TV that actually supports true native HDTV resolutions, seen a bunch offer HD-ready, but they don't actually run it and in fact scale it down.
Most that I've seen support "true native HDTV resolutions" (specifically, they natively support 720p), though I haven't seen any 19" 1080i/p native HDTVs (not surprising; even computer monitors rarely support more than 1600x1200 at that size, and computer monitor use is more likely to call for high resolution than most TV uses (game console use being one of the TV uses that is most likely to put resolution at a premium, of course.)
There's this thing called contingency fees. If you have a decent case, you can find an attorney who will take the case for a percentage of any judgement or settlement you receive.
That's not at all true. Its possible to have a rock solid, virtually unloseable case and still have very little chance that any judgement or settlement would even pay for the attorney's time in writing a demand letter, much less litigating the case, either because the likely remedy wouldn't include money damages or would only include small money damages, or because whatever the damage award, its unlikely much could be collected from the defendant.
A "decent case" in terms of probability of success if competently litigated is not the same thing as one which is likely to be litigated profitably. If you've got the latter, you'll probably be able to find someone to take it, but the same does not hold for the former.
If the stakes are not high enough to interest a lawyer, there's this other thing called Small Claims Court.
Small claims courts are not federal courts. You can't bring an antitrust action in small claims court.
There are, you know, rules about what kind of action can be brought in what court.
In Small Claims, there is a level playing field, because the other side is not allowed to hire a lawyer to represent them in court.
More accurately, in Small Claims, there is more of a level playing field between wealthy and less-wealth litigants, because neither party can have a lawyer represent them in court (unless, as I recall, the party is a corporation and the lawyer is an officer of the corporation, or, of course, the party is a lawyer themself.)
Similarly, you are not allowed to use a lawyer to sue in small claims.
You can "use" a lawyer -- you can hire one to assist in preparing your filing, to help gather, organize, and prepare evidence, and otherwise help you get ready to appear -- you just can't have one appear to represent you.
There are a lot of potential legal problems with the GPL, and I don't know that its all that clear how some parts of it would stand up in a contract dispute.
But challenging on antitrust grounds is bizarre.
VB.Net is probably easier to get started in programming, though not programming well.
(Certainly, that would be true of vB6.0 vs. Java, I think its still true of VB.Net)
I'm really not sure what language is good for children to learn to program that both isn't scary and, at the same time, doesn't lend itself to fostering bad habits.
Sun was able to sue Microsoft for $750 Million because Java was not open source
Sun was able to sue Microsoft because of the licensing arrangement with Microsoft, true. However, that was then -- when Java was comparatively new, and their weren't clean room, open-source implementations. Now, if someone wanted to split the Java world, they wouldn't bother licensing it from Sun, anyway, so not open sourcing it doesn't protect Sun from forks of the standard, only from forks of the actual code, which aren't what matters in the market.
(Alternatively, what someone would do now if they had lots of market power was release their own VM with similar features to Javas, their own set of languages targetting that VM, etc.)
Sun not open-sourcing their Java implementation isn't going to stop anyone with motivation and resources from pushing their own open-source Java implementation, especially since their are existing open source implementations out their than can be grabbed for the basis of such an effort.
OTOH, as long as Sun's implementation isn't open-source, if someone does do that and fork the standard, Sun is stuck themselves having to clean-room implement any of the features introduced in that fork if they became established as desirable -- so if Sun is worrying about someone else forking the code, the best bet may be for them to open the code now, when they can get some goodwill boost for it, rather than doing it when, e.g., IBM releases its own commercially-supported open source implementation with added features, and IBM, instead, gets the OS community goodwill, and Sun is forced to open source their version just to stay relevant.
He says the failure to open-source Java means that it can't be used on millions of $100, Linux-powered PCs envisioned under Nicholas Negroponte's One Laptop Per Child project,
Well, the Sun JRE can't be, but one of the open-source Java implementations can; this is a small loss for One Laptop Per Child (it would be slightly better to have the genuine sun system, since the open versions are a bit behind, IIRC, though their compatibility with the version of the JRE whose features they implement is, as I understand, very good), and maybe a small loss for Sun -- it may lose some dominance, but among a market segment that's going to be spending a lot. I suppose it could hurt Sun if content providers target that group enough that the open-source platform chosen becomes a de facto standard, especially if "bug compatibility" with it becomes important, but how likely is that?
Really, except for Sun goodwill/PR, I don't see a big deal here.
I think you have a missunderstanding of what 480p & 1080i/p mean.
No, I don't.
It's not about how big the lettering is on your display, it's about displayed lines;
Yes, I understand what resolution means. What determines the ability to see a difference is whether or not the difference in the diplayed details are smaller than the eye can detect, which is an affect of the solid angle subtended by a fixed portion of the screen.
which from what you said is obviously what you are thinking.
Which part of what I said made you think I was talking about text size?
How at 640x480 icons and text get huge, again that's not what it's about. Play the same video at 640x480 & 960x540 (the equivalent 480p & 540p timings) and see if it's a massive, stunning difference.
Well, there's not if you are playing content that's not natively significantly higher resolution than 640x480 (though its interesting that you've gone from claiming that there isn't a big difference between 480p and 720p/1080i at that size to claiming there isn't a big difference between 480p and 540p, which is, you know, a pretty big difference.)
But, yeah, if you've got content that your system renders at the higher resolution, or video natively at the higher resolution, there is a very noticeable difference on a 19" screen at several feet.
It's not just my opinion either, go ask the people at avsforum and see if it's worth the investment, like me they'll say there is a difference but like me they'll say the benefit is just not there.
Whether the difference is worth the cost is, of course, subjective, and I really don't have any particular interest in what you or the people at avsforum think about that; that people are buying HDTV's much smaller than 65" convinces me that your suggestion that its not worth it without a giant TV, whether you and avsforum agree about it or not, untrue as far as the marketplace goes.
Further, the claim that there is a "huge" difference on a 65" screen at living-room distances but no detectable difference on a 19" screen at anything more than 6" is geometrically ludicrous. The difference between one resolution and another on a 65" screen viewed from, e.g., 10' is going to be the same as the difference on a 19" screen viewed from approximately 2'11". That's an objective fact of geometry.
And, as I said before, the people using their consoles on 19" screens in their bedrooms are likely doing so much closer to the screen than those using biggers screens in their living-rooms -- and I would bet, too, that most of those "bigger screens" are a lot smaller than 65", too.
Or, alternately, that Will Wright has succumbed to Molynieuxism and is over-promising. Which seems likely. . . but what parts are being overpromised?
Well if, Simsville (the product combining elements of the Sims with those of SimCity that was supposedly well on its way -- before it was cancelled) is any indication, it could be that the overpromising is on the idea that the game will ever be delivered.
I mean, I'm a huge fan of both the SimCity and The Sims lines, and Spore looks like it could be great, but hype that goes far beyond what is delivered isn't exactly unheard of there, either.
I think sports games are, in a way, harder to innovate than other genres. That's because you're essentially boxed in to how the sport works and handles itself. You can't really change the rules, too much, without people complaining about how unrealistic it is. (Then again, some people LIKE that, which is why games like NBA Jam and NFL Blitz have a sizeable fanbase) That, and you HAVE to release a new version each year.
You have to update data files (rosters, etc.) each year, or even more frequently. Except for the limitations of console formats where you couldn't expect much in the way of being able to apply updaets, there is no reason why that has to mean a new game release -- it could just be a nominally priced, or even free, downloadable product.
But there's plenty of room for innovation in the games, anyhow, in things like the UI, player AI, play designers and other "strategy planning" features. Unfortunately, the "must release every year" practice so far, I think, has cramped development in those areas, you get small feature tweaks and lots of glitzy but shallow add-ons (more songs in the soundtrack! a bunch of different intro/menu videos!).
Hopefully, the features of this console generation will change the practices, but they may have become ossified.
The cost benefit of HDTV on a 19" TV just isn't there, as unless you are 6" away from the screen you are losing detail quickly.
6 inches? Talk about hyperbole. If you don't see a major difference between 640x480 and, say, 1600x1200 (to take common PC resolutions approximately matching 480p and 1080p) on a 19" screen from even several feet away, you probably need to see someone about your vision problems.
Now compare 480p to 1080p on a 65"+ display you are going to notice a BIG difference,
At risk of pointing out math, if there is a BIG difference on a 65" display at 10 feet, then there is an equally a BIG difference on a 19" display at 3 feet (considerably more than 6 inches). And, frankly, I think you'll find most people note a "big difference" between 480p and 1080p on smaller screens than 65" at 10 feet away.
And I think you'll find the distances people watch or play games on 19" TVs or monitors in their bedrooms are quite often easily 1/3 or less the distance that they do those same activities from the giant TVs in their living rooms.
IIRC, many US states already have statutes making it illegal to make, sell, etc., anything with the knowledge, intent, or reasonable belief it will be used to commit any crime, and even where there is no such specific law, doing so may go a way toward convicting you as an accessory, conspirator, etc.
...in both Britain and the US, laws phrased the way this is are usually construed such that, in order to commit an offense, the person making, distributing, etc., an article would have to have the intent or belief that that particular instance would or was likely to be used for criminal purposes. It wouldn't outlaw, e.g., making a software tool with the belief (or even near-certain statistical knowledge) that, among all the users, some number of them would use it illegally.
That's not to say its not still overly broad, unnecessary, chilling, etc., even so, but the idea that it amounts, if enforced across the board, to a ban on Perl on the basis that the creator knows that someone, somewhere is likely to end up using them illegally is probably greatly overstated. At least, as I understand things.
"50% Innovation"?
Sure, the part you quote talks about wanting to have both innovative gameplay and great graphics (what do you expect he'd say? We want to have great gameplay and lame graphics, or great graphics and lame gameplay?), but 50% suggests a quantification that just isn't in the article.
Or was the "50% innocation" based on the 50% owned-vs.-licensed IP in TFA, viz (from the second page):
EA seems to be placing more and more emphasis on developing its own content, as opposed to licensing it from other content owners. Do you have any targets on what percentage of your business you want owned IP [intellectual property] to be?
You think some toy company is going to want to market toys based on a short film no one but a bunch of geeks has seen rather than toys based on a movie that grossed hundreds of millions of dollars and was seen by every kid in the country, all of whom will whine to their parents that they want the toys involved with it?
I think its more likely that the toy company would take the movie and promote/distribute it where it can get more eyeballs on it (no development or licensing costs -- well, maybe some of the former if they do their own edits -- just marketing costs), and then squirt out a bunch of toys based on it.
HD really becomes a moot point on 30" displays and below, what's it's really about is on big displays removing the blockyness, etc. The average computer display or kids 19" bedroom TV even taking a full HD input really won't get you that much of a kick up over regular NTSC.
Yes, it will, because the average kids bedroom TV set or computer display is going to be considerably closer to the user's eyeballs than a big livingroom TV, most of the time.
I'm not trying to say the Sony strategy is right, or even well-executed. Merely that they've been open for a long time about what it is, that the PS2 was a first step in that direction, that (even around the time of the PS2 release) the next console would be a bigger step in that direction, etc.
I'd say, so far, that their marketing hasn't been well directed for what they've been saying in the business press is their strategy for a long time, OTOH, if they want to push it as a Blu-ray player, there is no reason to do a media blitze angled that way until shortly before the launch.
I agree that you have good points about the nature of the early-adopting market.
Now, OTOH, they could do something slick if, parallel to how many DVDs have PC-exclusive interactive content, they could get some early Blu-ray movie releases to include really worthwhile PS3-exclusive interactive content, they could really leverage the functionality.
...say anything about support, he talks about "community-based software" (not "community support") versus the "commercial software model" (not "commercial support").
Now, its quite possible he is trying to conflate things and leverage the very real benefits to many companies of purchasing commercial support (which you can get for many open source software packages) and portray it as a benefit of the software development model, as part of Microsoft's ongoing effort to spread FUD about OSS that competes with Microsoft products.
Other people want the reliability and the dependability that comes from a commercial software model.
Certainly, there is commercial, proprietary software that is reliable and dependable. And certainly there is open-source software that isn't. OTOH, there are plenty of cases where the reverse is true, and I, for one, see little in the "commercial" software model, contrasted with the OSS model, that leads to "reliability and dependability" systematically.
I was just at a talk given by the USPTO comissioner - a lot of the talk was given to how they are addressing the problem you describe.
Basically a big problem was that for quite a few years, the USPTO funds were being partially diverted to other programs (like social security). So they were not really able to do a lot during that time to address a growing backlog of patent applications.
Um, that example is clearly false: Social Security is not only completely self-funding, but its surplus is borrowed to fund lots of the regular operation of the government. US PTO funds are not being stolen to fund SS.
Patents are supposed to help small inventors make it big
No, they are supposed to stimulate progress in the useful arts and sciences. At least in the US, where the Constitutional provision allowing patents cites that purpose.
Preference for a particular "size" of creator isn't part of the purpose, at all.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not at all true. Its possible to have a rock solid, virtually unloseable case and still have very little chance that any judgement or settlement would even pay for the attorney's time in writing a demand letter, much less litigating the case, either because the likely remedy wouldn't include money damages or would only include small money damages, or because whatever the damage award, its unlikely much could be collected from the defendant.
A "decent case" in terms of probability of success if competently litigated is not the same thing as one which is likely to be litigated profitably. If you've got the latter, you'll probably be able to find someone to take it, but the same does not hold for the former.
Small claims courts are not federal courts. You can't bring an antitrust action in small claims court.
There are, you know, rules about what kind of action can be brought in what court.
More accurately, in Small Claims, there is more of a level playing field between wealthy and less-wealth litigants, because neither party can have a lawyer represent them in court (unless, as I recall, the party is a corporation and the lawyer is an officer of the corporation, or, of course, the party is a lawyer themself.)
You can "use" a lawyer -- you can hire one to assist in preparing your filing, to help gather, organize, and prepare evidence, and otherwise help you get ready to appear -- you just can't have one appear to represent you.
There are a lot of potential legal problems with the GPL, and I don't know that its all that clear how some parts of it would stand up in a contract dispute. But challenging on antitrust grounds is bizarre.
VB.Net is probably easier to get started in programming, though not programming well.
(Certainly, that would be true of vB6.0 vs. Java, I think its still true of VB.Net)
I'm really not sure what language is good for children to learn to program that both isn't scary and, at the same time, doesn't lend itself to fostering bad habits.
Sun not open-sourcing their Java implementation isn't going to stop anyone with motivation and resources from pushing their own open-source Java implementation, especially since their are existing open source implementations out their than can be grabbed for the basis of such an effort.
OTOH, as long as Sun's implementation isn't open-source, if someone does do that and fork the standard, Sun is stuck themselves having to clean-room implement any of the features introduced in that fork if they became established as desirable -- so if Sun is worrying about someone else forking the code, the best bet may be for them to open the code now, when they can get some goodwill boost for it, rather than doing it when, e.g., IBM releases its own commercially-supported open source implementation with added features, and IBM, instead, gets the OS community goodwill, and Sun is forced to open source their version just to stay relevant.
Well, the Sun JRE can't be, but one of the open-source Java implementations can; this is a small loss for One Laptop Per Child (it would be slightly better to have the genuine sun system, since the open versions are a bit behind, IIRC, though their compatibility with the version of the JRE whose features they implement is, as I understand, very good), and maybe a small loss for Sun -- it may lose some dominance, but among a market segment that's going to be spending a lot. I suppose it could hurt Sun if content providers target that group enough that the open-source platform chosen becomes a de facto standard, especially if "bug compatibility" with it becomes important, but how likely is that?
Really, except for Sun goodwill/PR, I don't see a big deal here.
No, I don't.
Yes, I understand what resolution means. What determines the ability to see a difference is whether or not the difference in the diplayed details are smaller than the eye can detect, which is an affect of the solid angle subtended by a fixed portion of the screen.
Which part of what I said made you think I was talking about text size?
Well, there's not if you are playing content that's not natively significantly higher resolution than 640x480 (though its interesting that you've gone from claiming that there isn't a big difference between 480p and 720p/1080i at that size to claiming there isn't a big difference between 480p and 540p, which is, you know, a pretty big difference.)
But, yeah, if you've got content that your system renders at the higher resolution, or video natively at the higher resolution, there is a very noticeable difference on a 19" screen at several feet.
Whether the difference is worth the cost is, of course, subjective, and I really don't have any particular interest in what you or the people at avsforum think about that; that people are buying HDTV's much smaller than 65" convinces me that your suggestion that its not worth it without a giant TV, whether you and avsforum agree about it or not, untrue as far as the marketplace goes.
Further, the claim that there is a "huge" difference on a 65" screen at living-room distances but no detectable difference on a 19" screen at anything more than 6" is geometrically ludicrous. The difference between one resolution and another on a 65" screen viewed from, e.g., 10' is going to be the same as the difference on a 19" screen viewed from approximately 2'11". That's an objective fact of geometry.
And, as I said before, the people using their consoles on 19" screens in their bedrooms are likely doing so much closer to the screen than those using biggers screens in their living-rooms -- and I would bet, too, that most of those "bigger screens" are a lot smaller than 65", too.
...of commercial etymology, and against community-based word development!
IIRC, many US states already have statutes making it illegal to make, sell, etc., anything with the knowledge, intent, or reasonable belief it will be used to commit any crime, and even where there is no such specific law, doing so may go a way toward convicting you as an accessory, conspirator, etc.
...in both Britain and the US, laws phrased the way this is are usually construed such that, in order to commit an offense, the person making, distributing, etc., an article would have to have the intent or belief that that particular instance would or was likely to be used for criminal purposes. It wouldn't outlaw, e.g., making a software tool with the belief (or even near-certain statistical knowledge) that, among all the users, some number of them would use it illegally.
That's not to say its not still overly broad, unnecessary, chilling, etc., even so, but the idea that it amounts, if enforced across the board, to a ban on Perl on the basis that the creator knows that someone, somewhere is likely to end up using them illegally is probably greatly overstated. At least, as I understand things.
I'm not trying to say the Sony strategy is right, or even well-executed. Merely that they've been open for a long time about what it is, that the PS2 was a first step in that direction, that (even around the time of the PS2 release) the next console would be a bigger step in that direction, etc. I'd say, so far, that their marketing hasn't been well directed for what they've been saying in the business press is their strategy for a long time, OTOH, if they want to push it as a Blu-ray player, there is no reason to do a media blitze angled that way until shortly before the launch. I agree that you have good points about the nature of the early-adopting market. Now, OTOH, they could do something slick if, parallel to how many DVDs have PC-exclusive interactive content, they could get some early Blu-ray movie releases to include really worthwhile PS3-exclusive interactive content, they could really leverage the functionality.
...say anything about support, he talks about "community-based software" (not "community support") versus the "commercial software model" (not "commercial support"). Now, its quite possible he is trying to conflate things and leverage the very real benefits to many companies of purchasing commercial support (which you can get for many open source software packages) and portray it as a benefit of the software development model, as part of Microsoft's ongoing effort to spread FUD about OSS that competes with Microsoft products.
No, they are supposed to stimulate progress in the useful arts and sciences. At least in the US, where the Constitutional provision allowing patents cites that purpose.
Preference for a particular "size" of creator isn't part of the purpose, at all.