 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> But the reality of a 20" display at 326 dpi, for 2D, is not useful.
Especially as Windows (or more accurately, programs written for windows)
don't seem to handle using higher DPI settings (typically icons and
fonts get lost off the side of windows).
> For a 20" display, that would make the pixel unreadable.
> (usual pixel size is between 0.2 and 0.3 mm, which is about the
> classical 72& 100 dpi of fonts)
> Pushing to 200 dpi in 20" would still be a frivolous move.
Some specialist-use displays (medical, xray scanning, aeronautical etc)
push up to 200 dpi in large format (2048x2560 seems to be the common
resolution), but you're talking $10k for these which means they're not
going to catch on for home/office use any time soon.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/01/2011 03:16 PM, scott wrote:
>> But the reality of a 20" display at 326 dpi, for 2D, is not useful.
>
> Especially as Windows (or more accurately, programs written for windows)
> don't seem to handle using higher DPI settings (typically icons and
> fonts get lost off the side of windows).
Cool. Another thing that Windows has ruined.
> Some specialist-use displays (medical, xray scanning, aeronautical etc)
> push up to 200 dpi in large format (2048x2560 seems to be the common
> resolution), but you're talking $10k for these which means they're not
> going to catch on for home/office use any time soon.
Not unless there's a radical price change, no. (And I'm guessing there
won't be until demand is there. And there won't be demand as long as
software can't do anything useful with the hardware...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Not unless there's a radical price change, no. (And I'm guessing there
> won't be until demand is there. And there won't be demand as long as
> software can't do anything useful with the hardware...)
Just be patient. Personally I think there will be more of an advantage
(especially for gaming and films) of going to higher frame rates rather
than higher resolutions. Films and games at true 120 Hz would be awesome.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/01/2011 03:39 PM, scott wrote:
>> Not unless there's a radical price change, no. (And I'm guessing there
>> won't be until demand is there. And there won't be demand as long as
>> software can't do anything useful with the hardware...)
>
> Just be patient.
Heh, yeah, like that ever works. ;-)
> Personally I think there will be more of an advantage
> (especially for gaming and films) of going to higher frame rates rather
> than higher resolutions. Films and games at true 120 Hz would be awesome.
Amen.
Obligatory XKCD quote: http://www.xkcd.com/732/ (Check the alt-text.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Personally I think there will be more of an advantage
>> (especially for gaming and films) of going to higher frame rates rather
>> than higher resolutions. Films and games at true 120 Hz would be awesome.
>
> Amen.
>
> Obligatory XKCD quote: http://www.xkcd.com/732/ (Check the alt-text.)
When I got 3Dfx card ages ago I remember setting my CRT to 640x480x120Hz
and playing Forsaken (one of the bundled games). As long as there
wasn't much on-screen action it would run at 120 fps and that was sweeeeet.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/01/2011 03:57 PM, scott wrote:
> When I got 3Dfx card ages ago I remember setting my CRT to 640x480x120Hz
> and playing Forsaken (one of the bundled games). As long as there wasn't
> much on-screen action it would run at 120 fps and that was sweeeeet.
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?
Is there any kind of video signal that can transfer data at other speeds?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19-1-2011 11:24, Stephen wrote:
> On 18/01/2011 10:35 PM, andrel wrote:
>> On 18-1-2011 22:51, Stephen wrote:
>>> On 18/01/2011 7:02 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 09:42:52 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> There's no infinitive in either version.
>>>>
>>>> True, I did misname it - but I found the sentence structure awkward as
>>>> originally written. Just misidentified why it was awkward. :-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Cause it sounds wrong.
>>> How do non-native speakers identify wrong grammer, I wonder?
>>
>> Reading and listening a lot until you get a feeling for the language.
>
> Oh! Just like native speakers :-)
yes, it does probably explain the FTFY from Andy yesterday.
> Thanks Andrel.
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcable com> writes:
> 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
I haven't seen an ereader that uses eink that has any of these problems.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19-1-2011 17:07, Invisible wrote:
> On 19/01/2011 03:57 PM, scott wrote:
>
>> When I got 3Dfx card ages ago I remember setting my CRT to 640x480x120Hz
>> and playing Forsaken (one of the bundled games). As long as there wasn't
>> much on-screen action it would run at 120 fps and that was sweeeeet.
>
> 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?
> Is there any kind of video signal that can transfer data at other speeds?
You don't honestly expect anyone to answer that, do you?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/01/2011 04:12 PM, andrel wrote:
> On 19-1-2011 17:07, Invisible wrote:
>> On 19/01/2011 03:57 PM, scott wrote:
>>
>>> When I got 3Dfx card ages ago I remember setting my CRT to 640x480x120Hz
>>> and playing Forsaken (one of the bundled games). As long as there wasn't
>>> much on-screen action it would run at 120 fps and that was sweeeeet.
>>
>> 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?
>> Is there any kind of video signal that can transfer data at other speeds?
>
> You don't honestly expect anyone to answer that, do you?
Well, I've often wondered what the point of having a graphics card that
can put out 400 frames per second is, given that (as far as I know) no
display devices update that fast. It just seems like a waste of computer
power...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/01/2011 4:12 PM, andrel wrote:
> You don't honestly expect anyone to answer that, do you?
I will.
No! he's winding you up. :-P
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> arguably clearer than the actual paper book I'm currently reading,
Yep. It's like high-gloss paper without the gloss. Very high resolution and
very smooth. Much easier to read than a standard paperback book.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> why is the iPhone the only device on the market to
> do this?
Why would you say it is?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/01/2011 4:08 PM, andrel wrote:
>>> Reading and listening a lot until you get a feeling for the language.
>>
>> Oh! Just like native speakers :-)
>
> yes, it does probably explain the FTFY from Andy yesterday.
To deep for me ;-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/01/2011 04:23 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> why is the iPhone the only device on the market to do this?
>
> Why would you say it is?
He didn't say "lots of devices do this", he said "the iPhone does this".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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"
I'm not saying it's the only or best way of phrasing it. But it's perfectly
good english to say "It will be John and I attending." You might reply that
on a wedding invitation or something, because it sounds a bit formal, but
it's nowhere near wrong.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/01/2011 04:23 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 19/01/2011 4:08 PM, andrel wrote:
>>>> Reading and listening a lot until you get a feeling for the language.
>>>
>>> Oh! Just like native speakers :-)
>>
>> yes, it does probably explain the FTFY from Andy yesterday.
>
> To deep for me ;-)
Shouldn't that be "too deep"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/01/2011 4:28 PM, Invisible wrote:
> Shouldn't that be "too deep"?
Oh! Bugger off, ya big toerag :-P
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/01/2011 4:28 PM, Darren New wrote:
>>> , or "John and me" for that matter.)
>>>
>>
>> Try "John and I are coming tomorrow" or "will be"
>
> I'm not saying it's the only or best way of phrasing it. But it's
> perfectly good english to say "It will be John and I attending." You
> might reply that on a wedding invitation or something, because it sounds
> a bit formal, but it's nowhere near wrong.
No arguments. It was “I coming tomorrow" I meant.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> When I got 3Dfx card ages ago I remember setting my CRT to 640x480x120Hz
>> and playing Forsaken (one of the bundled games). As long as there wasn't
>> much on-screen action it would run at 120 fps and that was sweeeeet.
>
> 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:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2337668,00.asp
The problem is the TVs are designed to only accept 60 Hz signals and
create the inbetween frames themselves. If only they could allow higher
frame rate data to be supplied from outside we'd be sorted (also I have
no idea what limitations are in current graphics cards regarding high
framerates). It surely can't be far off, I expect 3D to drive the
change, as consoles/PCs will soon be required to send data at 120 Hz to
give 60 Hz to each eye.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 18:57:07 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>> 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. ;-)
Hehehehe, you know, I was quite amazed when, at a holiday party last
year, the hosts showed us a couple episodes of "Only Fools and
Horses" (Mark's from Ireland and has a heavy Irish accent most of the
time) and they gave us the caveat that the accents might be difficult to
understand, but we didn't need subtitles and understood most of the
cultural jokes as well as not having a problem with the accents. :-)
I think they were slightly surprised that we didn't have any problems at
all understanding what was being said. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott escreveu:
> 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:
I've seen some bluray animations in these 120hz (or was it higher?) LCDs
and was blown away. Andrew's eyes don't seem to notice any difference
between 480p and 1080p, but I'm sure the bizarrely bigger-than-life
smoothness would be difficult to ignore...
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19-1-2011 17:23, Stephen wrote:
> On 19/01/2011 4:08 PM, andrel wrote:
>>>> Reading and listening a lot until you get a feeling for the language.
>>>
>>> Oh! Just like native speakers :-)
>>
>> yes, it does probably explain the FTFY from that big toerag yesterday.
>
> To deep for me ;-)
My sincere apologies for that.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/01/2011 9:10 PM, andrel wrote:
>> Too deep for me ;-)
>
> My sincere apologies for that.
Accepted :-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/01/2011 7:45 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> No wonder we need sub-titles for American TV. ;-)
>
> Hehehehe, you know, I was quite amazed when, at a holiday party last
> year, the hosts showed us a couple episodes of "Only Fools and
> Horses" (Mark's from Ireland and has a heavy Irish accent most of the
> time) and they gave us the caveat that the accents might be difficult to
> understand, but we didn't need subtitles and understood most of the
> cultural jokes as well as not having a problem with the accents. :-)
>
From what I can remember, the speech in "Only Fools and Horses" is
pretty Standard English, English. A bit of a South London accent, I admit.
It’s not the American accent that is troublesome, it is the divergence
from English grammar that makes American TV shows difficult to
understand. Give it another 20 years and we will be speaking like you do
now. ;-)
> I think they were slightly surprised that we didn't have any problems at
> all understanding what was being said. :-)
>
I'm not. But a t'ick Oirish voice can be hard on the ear. Listen to any
Dubliners album. :-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 21:45:05 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 19/01/2011 7:45 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>>> No wonder we need sub-titles for American TV. ;-)
>>
>> Hehehehe, you know, I was quite amazed when, at a holiday party last
>> year, the hosts showed us a couple episodes of "Only Fools and Horses"
>> (Mark's from Ireland and has a heavy Irish accent most of the time) and
>> they gave us the caveat that the accents might be difficult to
>> understand, but we didn't need subtitles and understood most of the
>> cultural jokes as well as not having a problem with the accents. :-)
>>
>>
> From what I can remember, the speech in "Only Fools and Horses" is
> pretty Standard English, English. A bit of a South London accent, I
> admit.
Yeah, it's that South London accent that some over here have real
difficulty with. RP not so much, but the further from London you get
(especially northward), the more difficulty some Americans have at
understanding it.
Until you get to Glasgow, that is, at which point even people raised in
Glasgow have trouble with the accent, that is. ;-)
> It’s not the American accent that is troublesome, it is the
> divergence from English grammar that makes American TV shows difficult
> to understand. Give it another 20 years and we will be speaking like you
> do now. ;-)
Oh, yes, I absolutely can see that - but that's because it's American
grammar, not English grammar. ;-)
At times, I'm sure native English speakers think Welsh is easier to
understand. ;-)
>> I think they were slightly surprised that we didn't have any problems
>> at all understanding what was being said. :-)
>>
> I'm not. But a t'ick Oirish voice can be hard on the ear. Listen to any
> Dubliners album. :-)
:-)
Mark used to teach technical courses here in the US, and I was always
amazed to hear him teach, because his accent softened considerably in the
classroom. He also has a bit of a stutter, and that also vanishes when
he's teaching material he's extremely familiar with.
There are definitions in Uxbridge English Dictionary that poke some light-
hearted fun at the "t'ick Oirish" accents that always make me laugh. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/01/2011 9:58 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Until you get to Glasgow, that is, at which point even people raised in
> Glasgow have trouble with the accent, that is.;-)
See you Jimmy, can yer mither sew? ;-)
>
>> > It’s not the American accent that is troublesome, it is the
>> > divergence from English grammar that makes American TV shows difficult
>> > to understand. Give it another 20 years and we will be speaking like you
>> > do now.;-)
> Oh, yes, I absolutely can see that - but that's because it's American
> grammar, not English grammar.;-)
Then call it American not English.
>
> At times, I'm sure native English speakers think Welsh is easier to
> understand.;-)
>
You must be joking?
> Mark used to teach technical courses here in the US, and I was always
> amazed to hear him teach, because his accent softened considerably in the
> classroom. He also has a bit of a stutter, and that also vanishes when
> he's teaching material he's extremely familiar with.
>
Amazing what “a non-normal situation” can do for a stutter.
> There are definitions in Uxbridge English Dictionary that poke some light-
> hearted fun at the "t'ick Oirish" accents that always make me laugh.:-)
>
???
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 22:09:43 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 19/01/2011 9:58 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Until you get to Glasgow, that is, at which point even people raised in
>> Glasgow have trouble with the accent, that is.;-)
>
> See you Jimmy, can yer mither sew? ;-)
Matter of fact, she does. ;-)
>> Oh, yes, I absolutely can see that - but that's because it's American
>> grammar, not English grammar.;-)
>
> Then call it American not English.
I did, or didn't you notice? :-P
>> At times, I'm sure native English speakers think Welsh is easier to
>> understand.;-)
>>
> You must be joking?
Just making sure you're paying attention. ;-)
>> Mark used to teach technical courses here in the US, and I was always
>> amazed to hear him teach, because his accent softened considerably in
>> the classroom. He also has a bit of a stutter, and that also vanishes
>> when he's teaching material he's extremely familiar with.
>>
>>
> Amazing what “a non-normal situation” can do for a stutter.
Yes, that it was. I co-taught with him once (well, technically, we
taught a half week each - he was the first half, I was the second), and
I'd talk to him during the breaks and he'd be back to his normal accent,
and then he'd wrap up the lab and start teaching again - so the students
would notice it as well.
>> There are definitions in Uxbridge English Dictionary that poke some
>> light- hearted fun at the "t'ick Oirish" accents that always make me
>> laugh.:-)
>>
>>
> ???
In particularly, the way Irish speakers from around Dublin use a hard "T"
for "Th" - "Third" becomes "T'ird". I think it was Barry Cryer who
provided a definition for "Farting" as "Irish for 'a star'".
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/01/2011 10:28 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 22:09:43 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 19/01/2011 9:58 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Until you get to Glasgow, that is, at which point even people raised in
>>> Glasgow have trouble with the accent, that is.;-)
>>
>> See you Jimmy, can yer mither sew? ;-)
>
> Matter of fact, she does. ;-)
>
Then get her to stitch this...
>>> Oh, yes, I absolutely can see that - but that's because it's American
>>> grammar, not English grammar.;-)
>>
>> Then call it American not English.
>
> I did, or didn't you notice? :-P
>
Here;s me thinking you said *Americans*
>>> At times, I'm sure native English speakers think Welsh is easier to
>>> understand.;-)
>>>
>> You must be joking?
>
> Just making sure you're paying attention. ;-)
>
Having worked at Dwr Cymru for a year, I pay attention. :-)
>> Amazing what “a non-normal situation” can do for a stutter.
>
> Yes, that it was. I co-taught with him once (well, technically, we
> taught a half week each - he was the first half, I was the second), and
> I'd talk to him during the breaks and he'd be back to his normal accent,
> and then he'd wrap up the lab and start teaching again - so the students
> would notice it as well.
>
I behaved similarly in Jamaica. Speaking like "Teach" in workshops but
like me in the office.
>>> There are definitions in Uxbridge English Dictionary that poke some
>>> light- hearted fun at the "t'ick Oirish" accents that always make me
>>> laugh.:-)
>>>
>>>
>> ???
>
> In particularly, the way Irish speakers from around Dublin use a hard "T"
> for "Th" - "Third" becomes "T'ird". I think it was Barry Cryer who
> provided a definition for "Farting" as "Irish for 'a star'".
>
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.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
>>>> Oh, yes, I absolutely can see that - but that's because it's American
>>>> grammar, not English grammar.;-)
>>>
>>> Then call it American not English.
>>
>> I did, or didn't you notice? :-P
>>
> Here;s me thinking you said *Americans*
Well, you quoted me saying it. ;-)
>>>> At times, I'm sure native English speakers think Welsh is easier to
>>>> understand.;-)
>>>>
>>> You must be joking?
>>
>> Just making sure you're paying attention. ;-)
>>
> Having worked at Dwr Cymru for a year, I pay attention. :-)
LOL, I thought I remembered you saying something about having worked in
Wales at one point, so I knew it would get your attention. ;-)
> I behaved similarly in Jamaica. Speaking like "Teach" in workshops but
> like me in the office.
I'm sure that confused people at first. :-)
>> In particularly, the way Irish speakers from around Dublin use a hard
>> "T" for "Th" - "Third" becomes "T'ird". I think it was Barry Cryer who
>> provided a definition for "Farting" as "Irish for 'a star'".
>>
> 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.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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 Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
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] devnull> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
