 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Um... can you actually do that? I mean, do there actually exist any
>> display devices that operate at some frequency other than 50Hz or 60Hz?
>
> IIRC most CRTs could be set to run at almost any frequency up to some
> maximum. 75 and 85 Hz was very common as 60 Hz gave quite bad
> flickering. LCDs can easily manage 120 Hz now, even 480 Hz:
Interesting. I was told that all LCDs always operate at 60 Hz and it's
impossible to change. Similarly, I thought CRTs had specific
synchronisation circuitry that only works over a very narrow band of
sync rates.
> The problem is the TVs are designed to only accept 60 Hz signals and
> create the inbetween frames themselves.
Well, yeah, there is that too. I'm not aware of any video signal system
that allows faster framerates. Not because it's impossible, but just
because it's not allowed by any widely-used standard.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 19:32:11 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> But, in general, books tend to have very sharp text, no blurring, and
> very little glare, or light induced strain. So, no, it is possible to
> have no problem with a book, yet have problems with an ereader, the most
> common issue being the "blurriness" of the text on some models.
That's odd, though, because there's been a recent study that suggests
that books make a bigger imprint (and are easier to remember) on the
brain because you don't have to work as hard at reading/focusing on text
in an eReader.
I didn't read the entire article on that, so it may be a load of tosh,
but....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 11:34:04 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> Basically, my question is this: If the technology exists to make a high
> resolution LCD, then why is the iPhone the only device on the market to
> do this?
It isn't. My Droid Incredible has a very clear and sharp SLCD display
(though I'm not sure what the ppi is on it)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 18:10:01 -0800, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> Agreed - that's why I said best selling authors. Even that's a stretch.
> I really meant people like King, Grisham, Grafton, etc.
Yes, but because there are so many authors who aren't best selling
authors, the publisher makes up the difference so they can 'loss lead'
with their top authors.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 09:17:51 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> On 18/01/2011 09:08 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> Write a song that doesn't at least in some fundamental way follow basic
>> musical structure, and it'll be nothing more than noise.
>
> Ah - so you're familiar with Pink Floyd then? :-)
I actually quite like Pink Floyd. :-)
When I'm talking about noise, it's more along the lines of 80's heavy
metal bands that I'm thinking of. There are, of course, exceptions -
most of the songs that I'd classify as "noise" are songs I heard riding
the school bus and never learned the names of.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 18:16:42 -0800, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> Well, I'd think having access to a studio really helps when you're
> recording a song...
Depends on the quality you're looking for, but yes, having the right
tools helps (in both cases).
>> To do so well, you have to know the proper syntaxes and structures to
>> use. Write a book using incomprehensible language or grammar, and
>> it'll be crap. Write a song that doesn't at least in some fundamental
>> way follow basic musical structure, and it'll be nothing more than
>> noise.
>
> I was thinking more about stuff like recording equipment, etc.
Fair point.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 10:20:29 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 19/01/2011 1:35 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> "It will be John and I coming tomorrow" sounds fine to me in answer to
>>> > "Who will be coming tomorrow?"
>> It's a bit formal, and still doesn't sound right to me. In answer to
>> that question, most people would say "John and I" or some variation
>> thereof - "Me and John" would be grammatically incorrect, but what a
>> lot of Americans would actually say, or "John and me" for that matter.)
>>
>>
> Try "John and I are coming tomorrow" or "will be"
Well, yes, I think that was my original suggestion. But at least here in
the US, most people will abbreviate to one of the 3-word variations I
wrote above, but that's not a commentary on what's grammatically correct.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 09:13:15 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> On 18/01/2011 05:26 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> no split infinitive. :-)
>
> Oh Christ no... >_<
"[...] To boldly split infinitives that no man has split before." --
Douglas Adams
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 09:30:58 +0000, scott wrote:
> Assuming people would follow the terms in the license agreement doesn't
> seem bad or faulty to me.
The bad assumption is that people will buy it, so then they write the
license agreement to reflect that bad assumption.
It's a faulty premise, and not really my problem that they made a bad
assumption and based their business model on it.
Most people that I know feel the same way - I bought the (CD, ePub,
whatever), so if I want to convert it to something more convenient for my
own personal use, that's my business.
Where it becomes a problem is when I convert it to a format that's
convenient and then share it with someone who should buy their own copy.
> The problem is how to draw the line between what is right and
> wrong from a legal point of view?
The problem, really, is how to draw the line about what's right and wrong
from an ethical point of view (from the publisher's point of view). Is
it ethically right to make people pay multiple times for the same digital
content? Maybe yes, maybe no, depending on the circumstances.
Just because something's legal doesn't mean it's *right*. That's with
civil disobedience is all about.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/01/2011 6:31 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 10:20:29 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 19/01/2011 1:35 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> "It will be John and I coming tomorrow" sounds fine to me in answer to
>>>>> "Who will be coming tomorrow?"
>>> It's a bit formal, and still doesn't sound right to me. In answer to
>>> that question, most people would say "John and I" or some variation
>>> thereof - "Me and John" would be grammatically incorrect, but what a
>>> lot of Americans would actually say, or "John and me" for that matter.)
>>>
>>>
>> Try "John and I are coming tomorrow" or "will be"
>
> Well, yes, I think that was my original suggestion. But at least here in
> the US, most people will abbreviate to one of the 3-word variations I
> wrote above, but that's not a commentary on what's grammatically correct.
>
No wonder we need sub-titles for American TV. ;-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
