Rather than dispute your assertion, which is technically accurate (but practically irrelevant) I will simply point out that:
* DVD can have interlaced video footage just as well as VHS. * The 3:2 pulldown film footage must be put through to be transferred to NTSC VHS preserves the complete, progressive film frames.
Any discussion of these topics is going to be a compromise between detail and brevity, and for all practical purposes, NTSC has 480 lines of resolution. The only actual case I know of where this is not the case is VCDs, which contain 240 lines of resolution at a maximum of 29.97fps.
"Remastering" refers to re-transfering the original film elements on a telecine, and cleaning them up to provide the best quality master for mass production possible. Unlimited quantities of DVDs may then be created from the duplication masters.
So they aren't creating the consumer DVDs from the VHS masters, but rather re-transferring from the original film elements. That, with the additional cleanup work (e.g. Scratchbox) is what makes a remastered/restored film look good.
Yeah, the Star Wars franchise is really suffering due to piracy.
Versus, say, producing two completely crap prequels, oversaturating the tie-in market, and then not releasing the original versions that many people want to buy.
George Lucas doesn't need any more of your money, and this seems to be reflected by the decisions he has made as of late.
"You should be able to align anything by top left, top right, bottom left and bottom right of an object (such as a div) both as an absolute and a percentage."
Your example here isn't too clear; you don't specify if you want the element you are aligning to be inside or outside of the other element, but both are easily possible with margins and/or relative positioning.
"You should also be able to specify on what layer within that said container the object you are positioning should be drawn." The property is called z-index.
And all these techniques work in Mozilla, Konqueror, Safari, and IE 6. I use them all the time.
It seems to me that the main problem with modern (semantic HTML/XHTML & CSS) web design is that people bash it without knowing what they're talking about.
Sorry if I was unclear about shadow passwords. While it didn't alter the hashing mechanism, it did raise the bar by making the hashed passwords harder to access, versus letting anybody read them from/etc/passwd.
My point was that it made cracking passwords harder, even if it didn't introduce a new way of hashing them.
You're assuming we won't have a better, harder-to-crack hashing mechanism by then.
This has been a process of incremental improvements - first crypt(), then shadow passwords, then MD5 hashes, and so on. We will certainly have something harder to crack in the future.
Yeah, unfortunately, most IrDA transmitters in PDA type hardware isn't strong enough to control AV equipment very well. You end up having to get really close to the TV to use the PDA (or cellphone) based remote, and at that point you can just stick your arm out and use the buttons.
I've tried using various AV remote software on Palm 3, Palm V, and (most recently) my Nokia 3650 phone. The results have always been disappointing.
On the other hand, a Bluetooth based remote would rock.
When I throw a party, I hook my laptop's video out up to my TV, audio to the stereo, and load up a 3-5 hour playlist and some XMMS visualizations. With Bemused and KDE Bluetooth, I can control the media player from my Nokia from anywhere in my apartment. Line-of-sight is not necessary, so I can be in the bathroom vomiting and queue up my favorite vomit music with ease.
It would be great if I could control my regular AV setup with Bluetooth. I could do it from my PC, laptop, cellphone, PDA, or whatever else. Even better would be something like this, but more universal. It would be great if I could stream audio from my PC to my stereo via Bluetooth, controlled by another BT device.
Be even better if BT had enough bandwidth to do video.
While I don't know for certain, it may be something like the MODE2 used for (S)VCDs, where you can fit 800mb+ of video on the disc by using the bits meant for error correction.
So you get 8.5gb of (error-corrected) data, or 9.6gb of (non-corrected) DVD video.
You've obviously never seen the film. A significant portion of it - easily 50% to 60%, if not more, is shot on video. Most of this is archival footage, news reports, and the like. Plenty of it is still plagued by interlacing artifacts and compression blockiness. I was pretty surprised that the film in the theater didn't look all that much better than the cam copy.
Unfortunately, what you want your browser to do is not always what I (as a web developer) want it to do.
Overriding the intended behavior is dangerous and stupid. If you must do it, you should be using a user-defined stylesheet instead of having the browser "helpfully" fuck up the page however it sees fit.
You will, however, notice that many of the bugs mentioned there are fairly trivial, and (as of Firefox 0.8) several of them appear to be fixed now.
It's not anything like IE's bugginess and incomplete support. You don't see freak bugs like IE's margin-doubling. IE also lacks support for:hover, position: fixed, and has many other bugs and omissions.
And the fact is, no browser supports all of CSS2. Mozilla (Gecko) has much better support than most browsers, and they are constantly improving it's rendering. Compare that with the stagnation of IE's development over the last several years.
Slashdot Mirror
He could be referring to an inverse telecine, versus smoothing out interlaced video frames.
Rather than dispute your assertion, which is technically accurate (but practically irrelevant) I will simply point out that:
* DVD can have interlaced video footage just as well as VHS.
* The 3:2 pulldown film footage must be put through to be transferred to NTSC VHS preserves the complete, progressive film frames.
Any discussion of these topics is going to be a compromise between detail and brevity, and for all practical purposes, NTSC has 480 lines of resolution. The only actual case I know of where this is not the case is VCDs, which contain 240 lines of resolution at a maximum of 29.97fps.
Fact: All NTSC video has 480 lines of resolution, including VHS.
Your question is nonsensical and out-of-context.
If you'd care to elaborate on the kinds of "black spots," and the type of TV (HD, old) you're talking about, I can probably answer your question.
Film has vastly more resolution than modern video devices are capable of displaying, including HDTV.
The process of transferring a film goes (roughly) like this:
Source material (film) -> master (video) -> cleanup -> duplication master -> consumer product.
"Remastering" refers to re-transfering the original film elements on a telecine, and cleaning them up to provide the best quality master for mass production possible. Unlimited quantities of DVDs may then be created from the duplication masters.
So they aren't creating the consumer DVDs from the VHS masters, but rather re-transferring from the original film elements. That, with the additional cleanup work (e.g. Scratchbox) is what makes a remastered/restored film look good.
Yeah, the Star Wars franchise is really suffering due to piracy.
Versus, say, producing two completely crap prequels, oversaturating the tie-in market, and then not releasing the original versions that many people want to buy.
George Lucas doesn't need any more of your money, and this seems to be reflected by the decisions he has made as of late.
That's probably prohibited by the EULA.
Either that, or it's contingent on you giving "certain rights" back to the publisher.
Of course not; X does not dictate policy. Hence why I prefixed my message with "in KDE..."
In KDE:
Right click your desktop, -> Configure Desktop
Behavior -> Menu Bar at Top of Screen -> Current application's menu bar (Mac OS-style)
For more fun, add a small Kicker child panel at the top of the screen, then right-click it and pick Add -> Applet -> Menu.
Then you can have your clock, systray, or whatever else in the menubar. At the top of the screen, but managed by the application.
Or File-roller, Zenity, Sawfish, Liferea, Epiphany, Evolution, etc etc.
"You should be able to align anything by top left, top right, bottom left and bottom right of an object (such as a div) both as an absolute and a percentage."
Your example here isn't too clear; you don't specify if you want the element you are aligning to be inside or outside of the other element, but both are easily possible with margins and/or relative positioning.
"You should also be able to specify on what layer within that said container the object you are positioning should be drawn."
The property is called z-index.
And all these techniques work in Mozilla, Konqueror, Safari, and IE 6. I use them all the time.
It seems to me that the main problem with modern (semantic HTML/XHTML & CSS) web design is that people bash it without knowing what they're talking about.
Sorry if I was unclear about shadow passwords. While it didn't alter the hashing mechanism, it did raise the bar by making the hashed passwords harder to access, versus letting anybody read them from /etc/passwd.
My point was that it made cracking passwords harder, even if it didn't introduce a new way of hashing them.
You're assuming we won't have a better, harder-to-crack hashing mechanism by then.
This has been a process of incremental improvements - first crypt(), then shadow passwords, then MD5 hashes, and so on. We will certainly have something harder to crack in the future.
Whoops, forgot to post anonymously.
I hope you enjoy your stay in our fine correctional facilities.
"How do you think we got here and were made."
Without a god.
Yeah, unfortunately, most IrDA transmitters in PDA type hardware isn't strong enough to control AV equipment very well. You end up having to get really close to the TV to use the PDA (or cellphone) based remote, and at that point you can just stick your arm out and use the buttons.
I've tried using various AV remote software on Palm 3, Palm V, and (most recently) my Nokia 3650 phone. The results have always been disappointing.
On the other hand, a Bluetooth based remote would rock.
(Warning: beer-swilling geek trivia/rambling follows)
When I throw a party, I hook my laptop's video out up to my TV, audio to the stereo, and load up a 3-5 hour playlist and some XMMS visualizations. With Bemused and KDE Bluetooth, I can control the media player from my Nokia from anywhere in my apartment. Line-of-sight is not necessary, so I can be in the bathroom vomiting and queue up my favorite vomit music with ease.
It would be great if I could control my regular AV setup with Bluetooth. I could do it from my PC, laptop, cellphone, PDA, or whatever else. Even better would be something like this, but more universal. It would be great if I could stream audio from my PC to my stereo via Bluetooth, controlled by another BT device.
Be even better if BT had enough bandwidth to do video.
Nothing.
*Zap*
Using flash for video is stupid and wrong. Use MPEG-4, and stick it inline with an element.
While I don't know for certain, it may be something like the MODE2 used for (S)VCDs, where you can fit 800mb+ of video on the disc by using the bits meant for error correction.
So you get 8.5gb of (error-corrected) data, or 9.6gb of (non-corrected) DVD video.
You've obviously never seen the film. A significant portion of it - easily 50% to 60%, if not more, is shot on video. Most of this is archival footage, news reports, and the like. Plenty of it is still plagued by interlacing artifacts and compression blockiness. I was pretty surprised that the film in the theater didn't look all that much better than the cam copy.
There's very little film in this film.
Unfortunately, what you want your browser to do is not always what I (as a web developer) want it to do.
Overriding the intended behavior is dangerous and stupid. If you must do it, you should be using a user-defined stylesheet instead of having the browser "helpfully" fuck up the page however it sees fit.
And let's be fair, there wasn't all that much humor in it to begin with.
Stop euthanizing my jokes, dammit.
Speak for yourself. I have Pi memorized to several dozen decimal places.
No, the page is from the future and has fallen backwards to our present.
You will, however, notice that many of the bugs mentioned there are fairly trivial, and (as of Firefox 0.8) several of them appear to be fixed now.
:hover, position: fixed, and has many other bugs and omissions.
It's not anything like IE's bugginess and incomplete support. You don't see freak bugs like IE's margin-doubling. IE also lacks support for
And the fact is, no browser supports all of CSS2. Mozilla (Gecko) has much better support than most browsers, and they are constantly improving it's rendering. Compare that with the stagnation of IE's development over the last several years.