 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Again, that's all very nice. But unless you have insane levels of
>> bandwidth available, it's not going to work.
>>
>> There's nothing theoretically difficult about sending video data over
>> the Internet. The problem is the bandwidth.
>
>
> Meh, I had a 1Mbit DSL connection for a long time, and my wife could be
> watching Youtube videos of kids playing with cats, and I could watch a
> netflix film at very decent quality w/o interruption for buffering. Of
> course now, with my cable internet bandwidth is no longer an issue... ;)
It is utterly baffling to me that this is possible. In my experience,
YouTube on its own is very unreliable. At certain times of day it's just
unusuable, while at other times it's just about stable. (I guess this is
probably due more to server load than end-user bandwidth though.)
Even when it works properly, the quality is nowhere near TV quality.
Same for BBC iPlayer, 4 on demand and all those others. As soon as you
make it go fullscreen, it looks horrifyingly blurry and covered in
compression artifacts. You certainly wouldn't bother paying money to
watch a *movie* at such low quality...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> My dad wired it himself. ;-)
>
> (As in, he literally chiselled out chunks of wall and then plastered it
> over again.)
Before they came up with cavity wall insulation you could just drop your
cables down between the inner and outer brickwork, drill a hole through the
wall where you want the socket, use the old bent-tape-measure trick to grab
the cable and wire it up to a socket. Job done.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Even when it works properly, the quality is nowhere near TV quality. Same
> for BBC iPlayer, 4 on demand and all those others. As soon as you make it
> go fullscreen, it looks horrifyingly blurry and covered in compression
> artifacts.
Are you comparing the two signals the same way? Note that if you feed
normal SDTV into a 22" monitor and sit 30 cm away then it looks *really* bad
too.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> Even when it works properly, the quality is nowhere near TV quality.
>> Same for BBC iPlayer, 4 on demand and all those others. As soon as you
>> make it go fullscreen, it looks horrifyingly blurry and covered in
>> compression artifacts.
>
> Are you comparing the two signals the same way? Note that if you feed
> normal SDTV into a 22" monitor and sit 30 cm away then it looks *really*
> bad too.
Well, DVDs are SD aren't they? I quite often watch DVDs on my PC...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Well, DVDs are SD aren't they? I quite often watch DVDs on my PC...
DVDs use about 5x the bitrate of SDTV.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 10:08:55 +0200, Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> did
spake thusly:
>>> Hard to believe but apparently true. Something fishy in our brain. Jan
>>> Koenderink, who was giving the talk, is trying to figure out why.
>> Perhaps something similar to line perception where we overestimate
>> acute angles and underestimate obtuse ones.
>
> My mother believes she can sing. Even though she's actually about a
> fifth to a third flat. The result sounds truly *horrible*! You'd think
> she could hear the difference, but no...
>
> She also claims to be unable to tell the difference between major and
> minor chords, which is impressive given the vast, world-alering
> difference between the two.
My father will happily sing and tap along half-a-beat out to music that he
likes. Drives me mad.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 15:53:51 +0200, scott <sco### [at] scottcom> did
spake thusly:
>> My dad wired it himself. ;-)
>>
>> (As in, he literally chiselled out chunks of wall and then plastered it
>> over again.)
>
> Before they came up with cavity wall insulation you could just drop your
> cables down between the inner and outer brickwork, drill a hole through
> the wall where you want the socket, use the old bent-tape-measure trick
> to grab the cable and wire it up to a socket. Job done.
Pah bent-tape-measure, professionals use ferrets :-)
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> On 4/27/2010 4:12 PM, John VanSickle wrote:
>
>> Government regulators, for whom being safe is generally more important
>> than being right, had a major role in the determination of the standard.
>> The standard had to allow for broadcast within a strictly-defined
>> frequency band, and this limit was chosen based on technology that is
>> now ready for deployment to your local museum, because these decisions
>> were made years ago.
>>
>> If I am remembering things correctly, there was even some insistence
>> that the signal be displayable by sets designed for the old broadcast
>> standard. If that sounds thinking-impaired, well, that's the FCC for you.
>
> kind of like how NTSC color was kludged on top of the existing black and
> white broadcast signal in the name of backwards compatibility?
Isn't "NTSC color" like "ATM machine"?
Oh wait, "Never Twice Same Color" is not the official acronym meaning? :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook v2 <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> My father will happily sing and tap along half-a-beat out to music that he
> likes. Drives me mad.
Accenting the off-beat is a completely valid form of rythm. Ever heard
eg. reggae music?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Phil Cook v2 <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>> My father will happily sing and tap along half-a-beat out to music that he
>> likes. Drives me mad.
>
> Accenting the off-beat is a completely valid form of rythm.
Sure. If you are consistently accenting the same beat.
Tapping midway between beats with variable accuracy is NOT valid. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 16:59:40 +0200, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did
spake thusly:
> Phil Cook v2 <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>> My father will happily sing and tap along half-a-beat out to music that
>> he
>> likes. Drives me mad.
>
> Accenting the off-beat is a completely valid form of rythm. Ever heard
> eg. reggae music?
Not the way he does it, he thinks he's perfectly in time with the music.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> You'd think she could hear the difference, but no...
I figured out that's why my wife can't sing. There was an experiment at a
science museum where it would play a tone and you try to match it. But you
couldn't here two tones at the same time. I usually got within one Hz of the
same tone. She was regularly off by 5 or 10 Hz. I'd play the two
alternating, and she's say she couldn't hear the difference.
It doesn't stop enthusiastic bad singing, tho.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> And then we replaced the Ethernet router with a wireless one. Um... OK.
Unfortunately, I only had two wires strung down to the first floor.
Fortunately, I could drill from the closet into the phone jack in the
kitchen from behind, so I could put stuff in the closet, including a
wireless AP and a hub to run the wire under the carpet to the entertainment
center.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> You'd think she could hear the difference, but no...
>
> I figured out that's why my wife can't sing. There was an experiment at
> a science museum where it would play a tone and you try to match it. But
> you couldn't here two tones at the same time. I usually got within one
> Hz of the same tone. She was regularly off by 5 or 10 Hz. I'd play the
> two alternating, and she's say she couldn't hear the difference.
>
> It doesn't stop enthusiastic bad singing, tho.
You know that pitch perception is logarithmic, right?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> probably due more to server load than end-user bandwidth though.)
Probably not. Probably due to bottlenecks between you and the backbone.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> You know that pitch perception is logarithmic, right?
She was still off by 10x as much as I was. Things that sounded the same
were a good semitone or even full tone different.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford escreveu:
> On 4/27/2010 12:59 PM, nemesis wrote:
>> Darren New escreveu:
>>> nemesis wrote:
>>>> BTW, don't you guys find it funny that ADSL is "dial-up" too?
>>>
>>> Not really. It's built into the line card, so you're not actually
>>> dialing anything. You're just using the same wires you would be
>>> dialing on.
>>
>> really? I used to connect without a line filter in my other telephone
>> across the room and, thus, if you happened to pick up the nearby phone
>> while it was connecting, you would listen to a bit of that "folkloric"
>> well-known old-modem dialing-up tune.
>>
>
> probably hearing some artifacts from the out-of-band signaling the ADSL
> modem is doing. Which is why you need the filter ;) I remember back when
> I had ADSL forgetting a filter on a phone jack, and picking up that
> phone. It was more like I had a bad connection than anything, though.
I heard white noise in the phone with no filter and in the one next to
the PC with a filter, I heard in the distance the very same connection
"song" of old modems as it was connecting. Once connected, no further
noise.
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford escreveu:
> On 4/27/2010 11:23 AM, nemesis wrote:
>
>>
>> LOL
>>
>> seems like Andrew still got some 30 years ahead to fully get to grips
>> with the real world...
>>
>
> Why doesn't my Atari 2600 do HD?
I was talking about modern game consoles.
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Tapping midway between beats with variable accuracy is NOT valid. ;-)
Of course it is. It's called jazz.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28/04/2010 2:23 PM, Phil Cook v2 wrote:
>
> Pah bent-tape-measure, professionals use ferrets :-)
Ee oop lad. I’ve told thee to keep thy ferret to thy self :-P
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Tapping midway between beats with variable accuracy is NOT valid. ;-)
>
> Of course it is. It's called jazz.
LOL!
[Insert witty remark here about holding down half a dozen
randomly-chosen notes simultaneously.]
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> http://vimeo.com/9078364
>
> youtube sucks...
...is something supposed to happen?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> besides game consoles, many people for the past few years have been
> connecting computers to their large screen FullHD TVs. Because, you
> know, it's usually more pleasing seeing images at a large screen from
> the comfort of your sofa (yeah, with a wireless keyboard) rather than
> sitting a few inches away from a much smaller screen.
Not if you're a programmer... although admittedly few people are.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 escreveu:
> nemesis wrote:
>
>> http://vimeo.com/9078364
>>
>> youtube sucks...
>
> ...is something supposed to happen?
besides bringing some tears to your eyes thanks to a beautiful movie, it
should show you better hi-def picture quality than in youtube in general...
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> http://vimeo.com/9078364
>>>
>>
>> ...is something supposed to happen?
>
> besides bringing some tears to your eyes thanks to a beautiful movie, it
> should show you better hi-def picture quality than in youtube in general...
Well, I clicked play and stared at a black screen for about 10 minutes
before giving up.
Maybe I need to try at a different time of day or something?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 escreveu:
>>>> http://vimeo.com/9078364
>>>>
>>>
>>> ...is something supposed to happen?
>>
>> besides bringing some tears to your eyes thanks to a beautiful movie,
>> it should show you better hi-def picture quality than in youtube in
>> general...
>
> Well, I clicked play and stared at a black screen for about 10 minutes
> before giving up.
>
> Maybe I need to try at a different time of day or something?
huh?
it's blocked here at work, I just had the link. You may look up 'Nuit
Blanche' in vimeo...
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 22:24:29 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> bedroom would be more valuable, so all we have to do is patch the holes
>> from the mounts for the screen and the projector - no problem. :-)
>
> Oh, these were just bolted to planks, basically. Totally movable. Not
> really the actual movie theatre experience, I'll grant.
Yeah, something similar with our ceiling mount.
> We did have a row of airplane seats for a while, after the Frnklin
> Institute science museum closed their 747 exhibit and basically threw
> away the plane. Did you know insurance companies value a row of 747
> seats at about $700, or at least did when we had the house fire back in
> 1985?
Wow - I assume 1st class seating, not coach. ;-)
And fire? Sounds like a story....
>> If we were going to be here longer, I'd have even run the wires for the
>> speakers in the walls. :-)
>
> That works even if you sell the house, mind. :-) I had ethernet put in
> the walls before the put the drywall up, but I definitely should have
> had the speaker wires run too.
Oh, true, and I wish I'd done Ethernet while we were in the walls.
>> Looks like I can get my bulbs sub-$300,
>
> I think my brother pays $800 or so for his. They're extra super bright
> or some nonsense. :-)
Yeah, we did blackout fabric on the windows (attached with velcro,
actually), so we run the lamp at low power, generally gives us a good
picture unless we've got the windows open. But I went in and watched Law
& Order: Criminal Intent during lunch today (oh the joy of working from
home), and I didn't bother putting the shade up on the south window -
kinad overcast today anyways.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 07:50:02 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 10:25:12 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>
>> > Question: Why aren't there any widescreen cinemas yet?
>
>> I missed this the first time around, don't know about in MK, but over
>> here, ALL of the cinemas are widescreen.
>
> Are there any cinemas in existence that aren't? (Discounting perhaps
> some home-made cinemas in some poor countries showing pirated movies
> from VHS...)
I wouldn't think so, since the cameras used in moviemaking are all
widescreen of some sort (anamorphic, 16:9, or some other variation).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 09:02:54 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Invisible wrote:
>>> When do you think that day will be?
>>
>> Not only is it here. It's a commodity.
>>
>> http://www.netflix.com/NetflixReadyDevices
>
> I don't follow.
Netflix streaming video service. I use it myself, generally get good
results over a 3 Mbps (down) DSL connection.
Or hulu.com. Or BBC iPlayer for that matter.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 08:35:30 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:
> On 4/27/2010 8:15 PM, Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> On 04/27/10 07:57, Mike Raiford wrote:
>>> Whats not to follow? They stream movies directly from the internet
>>> (albeit at SD resolutions ..)
>>
>> Depends on how you define SD - I've seen movies through it that
are
>> definitely beyond DVD quality.
>>
>>
> I think the resolution actually tops out somewhere around 720x480. Their
> STB only supports the SD mode, though it may be progressive scan, or it
> could be that you have a high enough bandwidth connection that you're
> getting less compression.
>
> What I have seen does indeed rival DVD in terms of picture quality,
> though.
It does; we stream from Netflix to our PS3, resolution isn't bad often
times (depends on the congestion on the network). The other day I
watched Chaplin because I'd never seen it - a few places the picture
quality dropped out, but it was definitely watchable. They only do
stereo sound, though, which was annoying (what with a 7.1 system in the
room).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 16:18:21 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> Again, that's all very nice. But unless you have insane levels of
> bandwidth available, it's not going to work.
3 Mbps isn't "insane" by today's standards. It's what I've got, and the
Netflix streaming works. Did I mention I project the image on a 9'
diagonal screen?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 20:10:43 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>
>> besides game consoles, many people for the past few years have been
>> connecting computers to their large screen FullHD TVs. Because, you
>> know, it's usually more pleasing seeing images at a large screen from
>> the comfort of your sofa (yeah, with a wireless keyboard) rather than
>> sitting a few inches away from a much smaller screen.
>
> Not if you're a programmer... although admittedly few people are.
Has nothing to do with being a programmer. I know quite a few
professional software engineers who have home cinema setups to watch
movies, and far prefer that over watching in front of their computer
screen.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Wow - I assume 1st class seating, not coach. ;-)
Coach, actually. But now that you mention it, I have to wonder why.
> And fire? Sounds like a story....
Not much of a story. 1985, house caught on fire while we weren't home, got
home, no people hurt, pets dead, expensive and annoying to repair thing.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 15:15:40 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Wow - I assume 1st class seating, not coach. ;-)
>
> Coach, actually. But now that you mention it, I have to wonder why.
Weird....
>> And fire? Sounds like a story....
>
> Not much of a story. 1985, house caught on fire while we weren't home,
> got home, no people hurt, pets dead, expensive and annoying to repair
> thing.
:-( Sorry to hear that (I know, it was a long time ago, but loss of home
and pets is a bad memory).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 04/28/10 06:35, Mike Raiford wrote:
> I think the resolution actually tops out somewhere around 720x480. Their
> STB only supports the SD mode, though it may be progressive scan, or it
> could be that you have a high enough bandwidth connection that you're
> getting less compression.
I'm guessing bandwidth. Speakeasy claims 25 Mb/s, although in practice
it's always lower. I get download rates exceeding 1.5 MB/s (bytes).
--
I considered atheism but there weren't enough holidays.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> You know that pitch perception is logarithmic, right?
>
> She was still off by 10x as much as I was. Things that sounded the same
> were a good semitone or even full tone different.
That's quite impressive...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> probably due more to server load than end-user bandwidth though.)
>
> Probably not. Probably due to bottlenecks between you and the backbone.
Shouldn't that affect *all* traffic, not just YouTube?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I don't follow.
>
> Netflix streaming video service. I use it myself, generally get good
> results over a 3 Mbps (down) DSL connection.
>
> Or hulu.com. Or BBC iPlayer for that matter.
BBC iPlayer I've actually used. The quality is not even close to what
you see on TV.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> BBC iPlayer I've actually used. The quality is not even close to what you
> see on TV.
What bandwidth did you have available at the time?
Try this page to check:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/diagnostics
After it's done the tests it tells you which services you can get in
realtime. I've never used it, but I assume there are options for HD (3500
kbps), and various bandwidth versions for SDTV. The top SDTV one is 1500
kbps, that should almost be broadcast quality.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 21:57:40 +0200, nemesis
<nam### [at] gmailcom> did spake thusly:
> Orchid XP v8 escreveu:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>
>>> http://vimeo.com/9078364
>>>
>>> youtube sucks...
>> ...is something supposed to happen?
>
> besides bringing some tears to your eyes thanks to a beautiful movie, it
> should show you better hi-def picture quality than in youtube in
> general...
Ah I've been corrupted I was a) waiting for everything to speed up and the
car to hit him and b) thinking if they cut this down to 30 seconds or so
it'd make a great perfume commercial.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/28/2010 8:44 AM, Invisible wrote:
> It is utterly baffling to me that this is possible. In my experience,
> YouTube on its own is very unreliable. At certain times of day it's just
> unusuable, while at other times it's just about stable. (I guess this is
> probably due more to server load than end-user bandwidth though.)
For a while I was severely annoyed with Youtube, it seemed like no
matter what, you'd get huge delays and it would take forever to stream.
The thing with video sharing services like that is that it's really
dependent on the source material. e.g. If the source material is
compressed beyond reason, then it'll look like crap, no matter what.
I've seen some videos on Youtube that look beautiful, but I've also seen
videos on Youtube where I couldn't exactly tell what I was looking at.
With Netflix, at least the source is of good quality, so you get decent
quality video.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/28/2010 4:16 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 16:18:21 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>
>> Again, that's all very nice. But unless you have insane levels of
>> bandwidth available, it's not going to work.
>
> 3 Mbps isn't "insane" by today's standards. It's what I've got, and the
Hardly. Barely average now ... :D
> a 9' diagonal screen
want... :D
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/28/2010 11:18 AM, nemesis wrote:
>> Why doesn't my Atari 2600 do HD?
>
> I was talking about modern game consoles.
Yeah, I know ... but it seems like Andrew is living somewhere in the past :)
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/28/2010 4:18 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Has nothing to do with being a programmer. I know quite a few
> professional software engineers who have home cinema setups to watch
> movies, and far prefer that over watching in front of their computer
> screen.
I have an HTPC connected to my TV that I use for watching streaming
video and movies. Much more relaxed and comfortable than sitting at my
desk.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/28/2010 9:54 AM, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>
> Isn't "NTSC color" like "ATM machine"?
But its still very common usage. We come from the department of
redundancy department. ;)
> Oh wait, "Never Twice Same Color" is not the official acronym meaning? :)
No, no it isn't. :) But it seems like it should be.. :)
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> a écrit dans le message de news:
4bd93db9$1@news.povray.org...
> Shouldn't that affect *all* traffic, not just YouTube?
Example: Orange (aka France Telecom aka Suicide Alley) had a falling out
with Cogent, who provides transit from the US to them. Result: until their
little quarrel is resolved, Cogent is throttling the tubes(1) so watching
YouTube or downloading from MegaUpload has become a PITA at certain hours.
It does affect all US-based content, though it's more obvious with video or
filesharing. Orange users were a little bit annoyed when they discovered
that other ISPs were not affected.
G.
(1) Actually, some people are accusing Cogent, others blame Orange.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Shouldn't that affect *all* traffic, not just YouTube?
ISPs can throttle the traffic based on where it is coming from, eg YouTube
or iPlayer. It's in their interest to do this, otherwise a load of people
using iPlayer could easily bring everyone's internet connection to a halt.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> Shouldn't that affect *all* traffic, not just YouTube?
>
> ISPs can throttle the traffic based on where it is coming from, eg
> YouTube or iPlayer. It's in their interest to do this, otherwise a load
> of people using iPlayer could easily bring everyone's internet
> connection to a halt.
More precisely: ISPs are based on the idea that nobody will use all of
the bandwidth they've paid for, and therefore it's OK for the ISPs to
provision the backbone with only a tiny fraction of the bandwidth
actually required.
And now YouTube and iPlayer are changing the way people use the
Internet, and ISPs are trying to claim that it's YouTube's "fault" for
being "irresponsible" by using up all this bandwidth - rather than
admitting that their networks are underprovisioned because it's more
profitable that way.
Still, once they start charging by the GB rather than the day, the
"problem" will solve itself...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 09:05:14 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Invisible wrote:
>>> probably due more to server load than end-user bandwidth though.)
>>
>> Probably not. Probably due to bottlenecks between you and the
>> backbone.
>
> Shouldn't that affect *all* traffic, not just YouTube?
Not necessarily. Bottlenecks can appear between any two nodes in a
network, not just the last hop.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 07:06:11 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:
> On 4/28/2010 4:16 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 16:18:21 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>
>>> Again, that's all very nice. But unless you have insane levels of
>>> bandwidth available, it's not going to work.
>>
>> 3 Mbps isn't "insane" by today's standards. It's what I've got, and
>> the
>
> Hardly. Barely average now ... :D
Yeah, the only reason I haven't moved to cable from my DSL is that I
would have to deal with Comcast, and they have some (IMHO) stupid ideas
about 'net neutrality' and what "unlimited" means.
My current ISP's policy is basically "we lease you a data pipe; what you
do with it, as long as you're not disrupting anyone, is your business".
>> a 9' diagonal screen
>
> want... :D
It's very nice. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
