 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/01/2011 11:21 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 22:56:02 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>>>> See you Jimmy, can yer mither sew? ;-)
>>>
>>> Matter of fact, she does. ;-)
>>>
>> Then get her to stitch this...
>
> LOL
>
There, there. I'll give you a Glasgow kiss. :-P
> Well, you quoted me saying it. ;-)
>
Did you read my reply to Andrew?
> LOL, I thought I remembered you saying something about having worked in
> Wales at one point, so I knew it would get your attention. ;-)
>
Two points. About 40 years ago I worked in a holiday camp in Pwllheli.
And of course St lived in Colwyn Bay. :-(
>> I behaved similarly in Jamaica. Speaking like "Teach" in workshops but
>> like me in the office.
>
> I'm sure that confused people at first. :-)
>
No, it was expected. o_O
>> Again, they do that in Jamaica. Probably picked it up from the Irish
>> "Indentured servants" who were transported there (and to Barbados) by
>> Cromwell's son.
>
> Quite possibly.
>
We've got a lot of history.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 00:05:52 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>> LOL
>>
> There, there. I'll give you a Glasgow kiss. :-P
I think I'll pass - I like my forehead too much. ;-)
>> Well, you quoted me saying it. ;-)
>>
>>
> Did you read my reply to Andrew?
Probably, but you know how it is with memory. ;-)
>> LOL, I thought I remembered you saying something about having worked in
>> Wales at one point, so I knew it would get your attention. ;-)
>>
> Two points. About 40 years ago I worked in a holiday camp in Pwllheli.
> And of course St lived in Colwyn Bay. :-(
I keep forgetting that you've got 20 years on me. Shame on me, must be
that old memory thing. :-)
>>> I behaved similarly in Jamaica. Speaking like "Teach" in workshops
>>> but like me in the office.
>>
>> I'm sure that confused people at first. :-)
>>
> No, it was expected. o_O
Interesting.
>>> Again, they do that in Jamaica. Probably picked it up from the Irish
>>> "Indentured servants" who were transported there (and to Barbados) by
>>> Cromwell's son.
>>
>> Quite possibly.
>>
> We've got a lot of history.
So I've noticed. Sadly, the immigration policies don't look to be
conducive to us moving over in the near future, so we're actually
contemplating a move to Oregon (since we have friends out there who have
said they want us to be near them, at least for a while <g>).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/19/2011 2:12 AM, Invisible wrote:
>> But, in general, books tend to have very sharp text, no blurring, and
>> very little glare, or light induced strain.
>
> I can't say anything about any other e-readers (I don't even know of the
> existence of any), but the Kindle's display really is quite nice. It's
> arguably clearer than the actual paper book I'm currently reading, since
> it doesn't have paper grain. You'd have to stare very hard indeed to see
> the pixels.
Read a few reviews on some of them. The Kindle and IPad seem to have
pretty clean text. A few of the others... not so much.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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.
Sure, but in a lot of cases people incorrectly believe they are doing no
harm by removing the DRM - I hear it all the time. They feel hard done
by because they can't use the content on another device, yet fail to
understand that it's precisely those limitations that has even allowed
them to get the content in the first place (prime example BBC iPlayer or
at the extreme hiring DVDs).
> 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.
You seem to be under the illusion that if you buy a copy of something it
gives you the right to use it as often as you want on as many devices as
you want. If the license says otherwise that's incorrect.
> 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.
That's the publisher's right to choose how they sell their content and
the business model they use. It's your choice whether to buy in to it
or not. But understand in many cases when you buy DRM protected content
you are not buying the right to unlimited personal use. If you were
then you'd likely have to pay more.
> Just because something's legal doesn't mean it's *right*. That's with
> civil disobedience is all about.
Sure, and of course I don't agree with all forms of DRM, but publishers
tend to like to spend a lot of money of lawyers.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Interesting. I was told that all LCDs always operate at 60 Hz and it's
> impossible to change.
That's just a property of the driver electronics, you can change the
voltages sent to the physical LC at any rate you want (of course there
is some upper limit of what is useful due to the response time). The
response time nowadays (at room temperature) is generally fast enough
for several multiples of 60 Hz to work fine.
> Similarly, I thought CRTs had specific
> synchronisation circuitry that only works over a very narrow band of
> sync rates.
I'm sure my CRT worked from 60 Hz up to 120 Hz. IIRC there was a limit
on vsync and hsync, so at 120 Hz vsync you could only use very low
resolutions.
> Well, yeah, there is that too. I'm not aware of any video signal system
> that allows faster framerates.
Well the infrastructure is surely still in the software and hardware (at
least with analogue VGA) for higher framerates as it is commonly used by
CRTs. Also reading the wikipedia page on DVI it seems there is no limit
for the framerate, only the overall bandwidth in single-link (it gives
1920x1200x120Hz as a valid mode for dual-link).
Just need someone to build a monitor that accepts something other than
60 Hz!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/01/2011 08:47 PM, nemesis wrote:
> Andrew's eyes don't seem to notice any difference
> between 480p and 1080p
Perhaps you mean 480i?
And besides, I didn't say there was *no* difference. I just said the
difference was rather small. Certainly not worth paying tens of
thousands of pounds for.
> but I'm sure the bizarrely bigger-than-life
> smoothness would be difficult to ignore...
Increasing the framerate does sound like one hell of a good idea. On the
other hand, they'll probably just increase it from 50 Hz to 55 Hz and
call it "extreme motion" or something. :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/01/2011 06:29 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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).
I'd suggest having the right technicians helps more. Mix engineering is
non-trivial, whether you have the right equipment or not.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Ah - so you're familiar with Pink Floyd then? :-)
>
> I actually quite like Pink Floyd. :-)
So do I. ;-)
Of course, as soon as you say that, you then have to clarify /which/
Pink Floyd. They've been through so many different stages in their
career. Are we talking about the fuzzy hippie stage? Or the 80s rock
stage? Or the 90s manic depressive stage? Or...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/01/2011 06:35 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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, really, is how to draw the line about what's right and wrong
> from an ethical point of view.
The way I see it, there's two sides to this DRM stuff.
On the one hand, publishers (of all kinds of content) stand to lose
insane amounts of money due to digital data being trivially copyable and
distributable. They need to figure out a way around that.
On the other hand, some publishers seem to be trying to use DRM as an
excuse to charge people more money for what they used to be able to do
for free. Or to force them to use one specific product. Or to spam them
with adverts. Or to secretly track their activities. Or generally to do
a whole bunch of things which have nothing to do with the nominal
objective of "preventing piracy".
I'm not sure how the situation will resolve itself. I'm hoping that
legislation will eventually be passed to prevent publishers doing evil
stuff like the Sony rootkit fiasco. (Don't hold your breath...) But
fundamentally, digital information is trivially copyable and
distributable. That makes it difficult to see how you could make a
profit out of it, unless you assume that a very high percentage of users
will voluntarily pay money for it even though they don't have to. I'm
not sure that's a good assumption.
Which is worrying, since most of this content is ludicrously expensive
to produce in the first place. If there isn't going to be any profit,
nobody will do it any more. And that would be tragic...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> On 19/01/2011 08:47 PM, nemesis wrote:
>
> > Andrew's eyes don't seem to notice any difference
> > between 480p and 1080p
>
> Perhaps you mean 480i?
Yes.
>
> And besides, I didn't say there was *no* difference. I just said the
> difference was rather small. Certainly not worth paying tens of
> thousands of pounds for.
They're now the standard TV sets and you don't pay much more than what you used
to pay for.
> > but I'm sure the bizarrely bigger-than-life
> > smoothness would be difficult to ignore...
>
> Increasing the framerate does sound like one hell of a good idea. On the
> other hand, they'll probably just increase it from 50 Hz to 55 Hz and
> call it "extreme motion" or something. :-P
Nope, it's 120hz and very visible a difference. Well, at least for people
without blurry eyes who can see a crystal clear increase in quality from 480 to
1080 or even 768...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
