bassfingers
Apr 17, 01:06 AM
why would I want to pay someone $17 an hour to a job a monkey is almost qualified to do? Sounds like an opportunity to hire less people, or jack my prices up. A job is worth simply what a job is worth. Period. If I'm trying to offer services at competitive prices, and someone is willing to bag groceries for $3 an hour, then they should be ALLOWED to. Rather than me just choose to hire nobody and using automated checkouts.
What happens then? More people find jobs, and prices go down. $3 dollars suddenly buys you a subway sandwich. # of consumers goes up bc more people are employed, which brings in more revenue, causes more hiring etc.
Also, people who do want to make $10 bucks an hour are forced to either be productive or learn something useful, which is good for everyone, plus that $10 is worth more now bc of deflation. Deflation would also drive interest rates on loans down bc the money you pay back is worth more.
Best case scenario, taxes are low at this point, and the government isn't a handout machine, so people feel the need to donate to an EFFICIENT charity. Rather than to the government, which is the most inefficient entity on the planet.
Overall result: More buying power, lower unemployment, more substantial and efficient charity, more innovation.
OR we can take away every incentive to be productive (France) and have a GDP smaller than the interest payments on the national debt (France in 2020)
I'd say since the high point of post WWII, we as a society in the U.S. have done our best to eradicate The New Deal and move back to reaching for magnificant wealth while screwing each other over.?
really? we've been getting LESS progressive since the new deal? I was under the impression that our government is GIGANTIC and tries to babysit us at every turn while simultaneously urinating on the constitution
No kidding right?
My buddy and I went boarding 2 days ago and he dislocated his finger (looked bad as it was all bent funny)
Anyways, took him to the clinic and was charged 1300 bucks to put it back into place and he doesnt have health insurance
Heaven forbid one needs surgery or broke a leg or anything more than dislocating a finger....would need a few million stashed away
Or perhaps a steady job mingled in with some tort reform, or a private charity willing to foot the bill if he were unemployed.
However, I don't know if boarding is the best option when you're unemployed
The more paranoid might suggest that oil companies are collaborating with auto makers and the government to keep efficiency as low as they can get away with. Remember, the record for fuel economy was set in the mid 70s in a slightly modified Opel: something like 237 miles on a gallon (US) of gasoline. Highly idealized conditions no doubt, but my goodness, the average automobile today should be at least a third of the way there.
US government regulations for increasing gas efficiency has resulted in car companies making vehicles lighter at rate beyond evolving the technology to maintain safety, which has resulted in an average of 10,000 avoidable deaths per year since the early 70's
But hey, maybe that fraction of environmental impact we have that's causing that fraction of a global degree change might have been marginally altered. Maybe. And it's only cost us ~300,000 lives so far. Thank you government! Just tack that onto the millions you killed by restricting DDT use, and you can further brag about your death toll
What is this supposed to show? That US corporations are more profitable? Is that a good thing? For whom?
Stock owners in these companies. Which are made up of middle class citizens
Ridiculous? Not quite, from the parent's perspective.
In Canada we have 12 months maternity leave, which can be taken by either spouse, or split, 6 months/6 months.
Yeah man, one of my biggest incentives to put my money on the line and open a small business is that I have the opportunity to pay someone to not work for a year.
Or maybe in that transaction I'll get to use the government as a middle man via taxes, and I'll end up spending %30 more in order to maintain its inefficiency
What happens then? More people find jobs, and prices go down. $3 dollars suddenly buys you a subway sandwich. # of consumers goes up bc more people are employed, which brings in more revenue, causes more hiring etc.
Also, people who do want to make $10 bucks an hour are forced to either be productive or learn something useful, which is good for everyone, plus that $10 is worth more now bc of deflation. Deflation would also drive interest rates on loans down bc the money you pay back is worth more.
Best case scenario, taxes are low at this point, and the government isn't a handout machine, so people feel the need to donate to an EFFICIENT charity. Rather than to the government, which is the most inefficient entity on the planet.
Overall result: More buying power, lower unemployment, more substantial and efficient charity, more innovation.
OR we can take away every incentive to be productive (France) and have a GDP smaller than the interest payments on the national debt (France in 2020)
I'd say since the high point of post WWII, we as a society in the U.S. have done our best to eradicate The New Deal and move back to reaching for magnificant wealth while screwing each other over.?
really? we've been getting LESS progressive since the new deal? I was under the impression that our government is GIGANTIC and tries to babysit us at every turn while simultaneously urinating on the constitution
No kidding right?
My buddy and I went boarding 2 days ago and he dislocated his finger (looked bad as it was all bent funny)
Anyways, took him to the clinic and was charged 1300 bucks to put it back into place and he doesnt have health insurance
Heaven forbid one needs surgery or broke a leg or anything more than dislocating a finger....would need a few million stashed away
Or perhaps a steady job mingled in with some tort reform, or a private charity willing to foot the bill if he were unemployed.
However, I don't know if boarding is the best option when you're unemployed
The more paranoid might suggest that oil companies are collaborating with auto makers and the government to keep efficiency as low as they can get away with. Remember, the record for fuel economy was set in the mid 70s in a slightly modified Opel: something like 237 miles on a gallon (US) of gasoline. Highly idealized conditions no doubt, but my goodness, the average automobile today should be at least a third of the way there.
US government regulations for increasing gas efficiency has resulted in car companies making vehicles lighter at rate beyond evolving the technology to maintain safety, which has resulted in an average of 10,000 avoidable deaths per year since the early 70's
But hey, maybe that fraction of environmental impact we have that's causing that fraction of a global degree change might have been marginally altered. Maybe. And it's only cost us ~300,000 lives so far. Thank you government! Just tack that onto the millions you killed by restricting DDT use, and you can further brag about your death toll
What is this supposed to show? That US corporations are more profitable? Is that a good thing? For whom?
Stock owners in these companies. Which are made up of middle class citizens
Ridiculous? Not quite, from the parent's perspective.
In Canada we have 12 months maternity leave, which can be taken by either spouse, or split, 6 months/6 months.
Yeah man, one of my biggest incentives to put my money on the line and open a small business is that I have the opportunity to pay someone to not work for a year.
Or maybe in that transaction I'll get to use the government as a middle man via taxes, and I'll end up spending %30 more in order to maintain its inefficiency
JoeG4
Apr 25, 04:27 AM
Nor does having a 2400 SAT score and confusing "their" with "there", along with various other errors in his writing - which even for a forum are somewhat unacceptable lol.
Still, it's kinda scary that someone with this kind of mindset is allowed to drive. Under no circumstances should you ever even think of running someone off the road.
Still, it's kinda scary that someone with this kind of mindset is allowed to drive. Under no circumstances should you ever even think of running someone off the road.
extraextra
Sep 26, 10:37 AM
I'm surprised at all the Cingular hate here. At least in the D.C. area, the word is that they have the best coverage available - better than Verizon, who was the previous benchmark before the merger.
Me too. I have Cingular and it works great. I mostly hear complaining from people who live outside of big metropolitan cities though, so maybe that's where all these people are from?
Well, I checked Cingular's map (http://onlinestorez.cingular.com/cell-phone-service/maps/pop_mapfinder.jsp?mapt=nationalMap) and they seem to have fine coverage. Maybe everyone lives in Alaska. :p
Me too. I have Cingular and it works great. I mostly hear complaining from people who live outside of big metropolitan cities though, so maybe that's where all these people are from?
Well, I checked Cingular's map (http://onlinestorez.cingular.com/cell-phone-service/maps/pop_mapfinder.jsp?mapt=nationalMap) and they seem to have fine coverage. Maybe everyone lives in Alaska. :p
felt.
Apr 4, 11:50 AM
****** buzz.
mlrproducts
Sep 13, 11:41 PM
I hope the iPhone can be use iChat and we can video chat with and Mac at any time.
Not to be mean, I am being redundant, but the chances of that happening when/if this phone is released is about the same as a Powerbook G5 coming out in matching colors.
Not to be mean, I am being redundant, but the chances of that happening when/if this phone is released is about the same as a Powerbook G5 coming out in matching colors.
clintob
Oct 12, 05:00 PM
So because they are poor, and haven't "developed", we should sit back and allow them to die, in order to thin out the human population? What makes the human race different from all the other animals is the ability for us to change our fate with tools. I would gather that if you were to take our technology away, say with an EMP, you would find that the people of Africa would have the skills to survive, while us Americans would suffer with our under developed hunting and gathering skills. Your view is way too narrow, and very American.
Please read the entire post, think about it, and then respond.
I never said we should allow anyone to die - I said the exact opposite... that it is our job to be compassionate and to try and help in any way we can. My point was that there are certain aspects of the culture in African society which have bene ingrained in their way of live far longer than any western culture has even been in existence. So to think we can change that with any amount of money or education is naive.
We can and should try to save lives, and that is always a good thing. The African people are human beings, no better or worse than Americans or Brits or any other culture, color, or country. But at the end of the day, it comes down to the age-old question of whether it's our job, responsibility, or even our right to impose our culture and belief system on another. I'm merely saying that these people have chosen to develop their culture in a certain way, and perhaps they need something other than our system of education to change that. They need time... and unfortunately with that time will come deaths. I would never say or imply that innocent people should die; I merely am saying that perhaps our efforts are misguided, and that these people have something going on that's far deeper than can be fixed with education or funding. Maybe they need a long period of time where they evolve at their own pace into what their culture deems an appropriate solution.
Please read the entire post, think about it, and then respond.
I never said we should allow anyone to die - I said the exact opposite... that it is our job to be compassionate and to try and help in any way we can. My point was that there are certain aspects of the culture in African society which have bene ingrained in their way of live far longer than any western culture has even been in existence. So to think we can change that with any amount of money or education is naive.
We can and should try to save lives, and that is always a good thing. The African people are human beings, no better or worse than Americans or Brits or any other culture, color, or country. But at the end of the day, it comes down to the age-old question of whether it's our job, responsibility, or even our right to impose our culture and belief system on another. I'm merely saying that these people have chosen to develop their culture in a certain way, and perhaps they need something other than our system of education to change that. They need time... and unfortunately with that time will come deaths. I would never say or imply that innocent people should die; I merely am saying that perhaps our efforts are misguided, and that these people have something going on that's far deeper than can be fixed with education or funding. Maybe they need a long period of time where they evolve at their own pace into what their culture deems an appropriate solution.
Intarweb
Apr 20, 11:06 AM
All I've seen is one paragraph claiming that. Until someone shows data from when location services was turned off it's hard to run with it.
Applogist? Jesus, that's such a sad bastardization of words. I'm trying to apply reasoning to this and have people understand that they've likely agreed to something because they don't read the ToS or SLA.
I'm sorry it was harsh to call you and appologist. From your posting you're not like the typical robot running around here.
Mine has always been off. When I get home I'll try the program and will have first had knowledge of if it does or doesn't track with it switched off.
Applogist? Jesus, that's such a sad bastardization of words. I'm trying to apply reasoning to this and have people understand that they've likely agreed to something because they don't read the ToS or SLA.
I'm sorry it was harsh to call you and appologist. From your posting you're not like the typical robot running around here.
Mine has always been off. When I get home I'll try the program and will have first had knowledge of if it does or doesn't track with it switched off.
lbjazz
Apr 11, 06:33 AM
Ok this makes no real sense to I figure Apple is behind it. Merantz and Denon both have upgrade and both same price. Are they for real, come on Airplay upgrade WTF. I smell Apple crazy behind it. :rolleyes:
I guess its a software upgrade to their internal chip, but I still think its stupid, if your going to buy a 1000 plus receiver this is just dam bad PR to me.
Denon and Marantz are the same company, two pieces of D&M Holdings (http://www.dm-holdings.com/eng/).
The discussion about this here is ridiculous. There are many good reasons that Apple has to encrypt the music data stream. First, it's a privacy issue--If encryption were not standard people would be even more widely angry that Apple provides an insecure product that allows others to snoop on one's audio stream. Furthermore, in order to license all that iTunes Store content Apple has no choice but to provide security in its delivery mechanisms. Movie and music studios are big into the whole idea of encrypted data streams and would stand for nothing less.
Now that the key is cracked, the security is theoretically defeated (someone just has to write a program to hijack data streams) and the studios no longer have their hacker-proof data stream. Apple probably doesn't care though because they did their due diligence and forcing a firmware upgrade with a new key (which would just be cracked again anyway) would be impossible and fraught with problems.
I guess its a software upgrade to their internal chip, but I still think its stupid, if your going to buy a 1000 plus receiver this is just dam bad PR to me.
Denon and Marantz are the same company, two pieces of D&M Holdings (http://www.dm-holdings.com/eng/).
The discussion about this here is ridiculous. There are many good reasons that Apple has to encrypt the music data stream. First, it's a privacy issue--If encryption were not standard people would be even more widely angry that Apple provides an insecure product that allows others to snoop on one's audio stream. Furthermore, in order to license all that iTunes Store content Apple has no choice but to provide security in its delivery mechanisms. Movie and music studios are big into the whole idea of encrypted data streams and would stand for nothing less.
Now that the key is cracked, the security is theoretically defeated (someone just has to write a program to hijack data streams) and the studios no longer have their hacker-proof data stream. Apple probably doesn't care though because they did their due diligence and forcing a firmware upgrade with a new key (which would just be cracked again anyway) would be impossible and fraught with problems.
Tymmz
Sep 14, 05:53 AM
Can't believe it until I see it in stores. Sorry.
Machead III
Aug 31, 12:38 PM
If they don't announce/release new MacBooks, my plans are severely screwed.
Aside from that, I have �200 to blow on some gadget or other. I wonder if Apple can give me a reason to give it to them rather than to Nintendo for a Wii.
Aside from that, I have �200 to blow on some gadget or other. I wonder if Apple can give me a reason to give it to them rather than to Nintendo for a Wii.
LightSpeed1
Mar 29, 02:21 PM
As far as windows phone market share passing iPhone ever - I'll believe that $#*% when I see it.
billyboy
Sep 17, 07:28 AM
:/
...the US which, sure, adopted cell phone use, but the landline service infrastructure that was already in palce held them back-why shell out for new tech when we can plug the old tech and rake in the money. It's funny, the US initial lead actually turned to a disadvantage for them (us).
Europe is so far ahead of the US in what and how cell phone technolgy is used.
Within the US, innovate or die, and elegant solutions to technology seem to be a purely Apple idea. US cell phones and cars, to name but two, seem to be archaic in design and function compared to elsewhere in the world. With that latest gold trimmed Cadillac SUV the size of a small bus and a 1980´s flip up phone, the US is all set to lead the way to retro.
...the US which, sure, adopted cell phone use, but the landline service infrastructure that was already in palce held them back-why shell out for new tech when we can plug the old tech and rake in the money. It's funny, the US initial lead actually turned to a disadvantage for them (us).
Europe is so far ahead of the US in what and how cell phone technolgy is used.
Within the US, innovate or die, and elegant solutions to technology seem to be a purely Apple idea. US cell phones and cars, to name but two, seem to be archaic in design and function compared to elsewhere in the world. With that latest gold trimmed Cadillac SUV the size of a small bus and a 1980´s flip up phone, the US is all set to lead the way to retro.
Zimmy
Sep 14, 06:34 AM
i agree i would snap it up the day it comes out..
on a side note: entry level mac mini is .01p cheaper :D
ZIm
on a side note: entry level mac mini is .01p cheaper :D
ZIm
Machead III
Sep 1, 03:16 AM
Agreed-UK is next to get TV shows-perhaps BBC will offer its shows.
It had better do. The British public (those who pay license, which like 99% do) has the legal right to every single piece of footage, news story, radio recording etc. etc. the BBC has ever produced, but we have access to about 1% of it.
It's a big point of controversy here. Partly it's been due to technology limitations, but pretty soon there'll be no excuse, and the BBC should be right off the bat finding new ways to deliver what belongs to us.
It had better do. The British public (those who pay license, which like 99% do) has the legal right to every single piece of footage, news story, radio recording etc. etc. the BBC has ever produced, but we have access to about 1% of it.
It's a big point of controversy here. Partly it's been due to technology limitations, but pretty soon there'll be no excuse, and the BBC should be right off the bat finding new ways to deliver what belongs to us.
FX120
Apr 16, 12:50 PM
Did you miss the USB to PS2 ports or are you just avoiding that? Are you also avoiding how I said it's too difficult for you to carry around an inch long adapter?
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how those adapters work. Going from thunderbolt to USB 3 would require active electronics embedded in the adapter. The $6 MDP to HDMI adapter is just copper internally because the signaling is compatible from the source.
LOL, the drive he was using WAS 7200-RPM so I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of this paragraph.
http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?id=10492
Again, you have a fundamental flaw in your argument that you're not addressing. It doesn't matter if the bus is capable of delivering massive speed when the source is incapable of serving data fast enough. Any single-drive enclosure that is currently available will be incapable of maxing out a USB 3 connection.
Your assumption is based on comparing two different technologies and assuming they will fare the same. My assumption was comparing ADAPTER prices. How expensive do you think adapters are? :rolleyes:
You can get them for super cheap if you know where to look.
When they contain active electronics, they get expensive. Apple's own MDP to dual-link DVI adapter is a great example, at $99.00. USB 3 and Thunderbolt are not electrically compatible, and therefore it is impossible to have a simple copper-only dongle that has a TB port on one end, and USB on the other.
Once again, YOU ARE BASING THIS ON PRESENT DAY SPEEDS THAT ARE ACHIEVABLE. This isn't a discussion about current theoretical limits, it's about the limits of the future because that's where these technologies will actually matter. The fact is that when we move to SSD transfer speeds USB 3 will get demolished.
Then why do you keep pointing to that article as proof that USB 3 is incapable of reaching it's theoretical maximum?
I never said it would go away. It said it will be used for the same things USB 2 is used for which is low bandwidth peripherals like mice which you don't need USB 3 for which is why it is essentially a useless upgrade.
USB 2 is the universal standard for high speed devices. If you think otherwise, you must have never used a USB thumb drive.
Yes, believe it or not we are talking about the future and the future for Thunderbolt looks a hell of a lot better than the future of USB 3 since it isn't locked at a certain bandwidth. Technology moves fast. The reason Intel decided to support USB 3 is simply because it is (as they said) complimentary to Thunderbolt. Once again you use Thunderbolt for things that need the speed and you use USB for low bandwidth peripherals.
Thunderbolt in a copper implementation is capped at 10Gbs. For higher speeds, the physical connections become impractical for "normal" devices, which is why Intel designed TB as a transport bus, say for a single cable between a tower and a monitor, which would then break the TB bus back into it's component protocols, including USB 3.
It has USB compatibility, hell it has compatibility with pretty much any IO on the planet. The connector is simply a means to an end and it scales much better for the future when said port is smaller.
Which as I said above, makes it practical for a transport bus. For replacing USB? Not so much. Backwards compatibility alone will likely dictate the continual presence of USB 3 ports on virtually every computer for years to come.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how those adapters work. Going from thunderbolt to USB 3 would require active electronics embedded in the adapter. The $6 MDP to HDMI adapter is just copper internally because the signaling is compatible from the source.
LOL, the drive he was using WAS 7200-RPM so I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of this paragraph.
http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?id=10492
Again, you have a fundamental flaw in your argument that you're not addressing. It doesn't matter if the bus is capable of delivering massive speed when the source is incapable of serving data fast enough. Any single-drive enclosure that is currently available will be incapable of maxing out a USB 3 connection.
Your assumption is based on comparing two different technologies and assuming they will fare the same. My assumption was comparing ADAPTER prices. How expensive do you think adapters are? :rolleyes:
You can get them for super cheap if you know where to look.
When they contain active electronics, they get expensive. Apple's own MDP to dual-link DVI adapter is a great example, at $99.00. USB 3 and Thunderbolt are not electrically compatible, and therefore it is impossible to have a simple copper-only dongle that has a TB port on one end, and USB on the other.
Once again, YOU ARE BASING THIS ON PRESENT DAY SPEEDS THAT ARE ACHIEVABLE. This isn't a discussion about current theoretical limits, it's about the limits of the future because that's where these technologies will actually matter. The fact is that when we move to SSD transfer speeds USB 3 will get demolished.
Then why do you keep pointing to that article as proof that USB 3 is incapable of reaching it's theoretical maximum?
I never said it would go away. It said it will be used for the same things USB 2 is used for which is low bandwidth peripherals like mice which you don't need USB 3 for which is why it is essentially a useless upgrade.
USB 2 is the universal standard for high speed devices. If you think otherwise, you must have never used a USB thumb drive.
Yes, believe it or not we are talking about the future and the future for Thunderbolt looks a hell of a lot better than the future of USB 3 since it isn't locked at a certain bandwidth. Technology moves fast. The reason Intel decided to support USB 3 is simply because it is (as they said) complimentary to Thunderbolt. Once again you use Thunderbolt for things that need the speed and you use USB for low bandwidth peripherals.
Thunderbolt in a copper implementation is capped at 10Gbs. For higher speeds, the physical connections become impractical for "normal" devices, which is why Intel designed TB as a transport bus, say for a single cable between a tower and a monitor, which would then break the TB bus back into it's component protocols, including USB 3.
It has USB compatibility, hell it has compatibility with pretty much any IO on the planet. The connector is simply a means to an end and it scales much better for the future when said port is smaller.
Which as I said above, makes it practical for a transport bus. For replacing USB? Not so much. Backwards compatibility alone will likely dictate the continual presence of USB 3 ports on virtually every computer for years to come.
AppleScruff1
Apr 19, 11:08 AM
Apple should just buy out Samsung!
Simplistic, I know.
Samsung is a slightly larger company than Apple.
Simplistic, I know.
Samsung is a slightly larger company than Apple.
iMacZealot
Sep 14, 12:01 AM
Its just some kind of 3G and Skype technology, It s not hard to do it. But I think Apple isnt rich enuf to do that in the market.
I think that Apple would make their phone a GSM phone to get more worldwide market rather than releasing it on CDMA. And I doubt they'd throw in 3G on a GSM phone because Cingular's 3G network is not the biggest right now. I think I read that Sprint's PowerVision is the biggest at the moment and still growing. T-Mobile just bought a TON of 3G bandwidth but isn't launching that until next year. So I don't think 3G would be in this phone because we aren't quite there......yet.
As for UMA, I'd be surprised if it didn't have a Wifi card. There are a lot of rumors saying that T-Mobile's launching a giant UMA service, which I wouldn't be surprised with the 7,000 wireless networks they own.
I think that Apple would make their phone a GSM phone to get more worldwide market rather than releasing it on CDMA. And I doubt they'd throw in 3G on a GSM phone because Cingular's 3G network is not the biggest right now. I think I read that Sprint's PowerVision is the biggest at the moment and still growing. T-Mobile just bought a TON of 3G bandwidth but isn't launching that until next year. So I don't think 3G would be in this phone because we aren't quite there......yet.
As for UMA, I'd be surprised if it didn't have a Wifi card. There are a lot of rumors saying that T-Mobile's launching a giant UMA service, which I wouldn't be surprised with the 7,000 wireless networks they own.
Jopling
Sep 26, 10:30 AM
I'm surprised at all the Cingular hate here. At least in the D.C. area, the word is that they have the best coverage available - better than Verizon, who was the previous benchmark before the merger.
Yeah Cingular has awesome coverage in DC. I have a cingular tower on my campus. Its unfortunate though that the metro decided to support Verizon underground considering its the only place you can get decent signal on verizon in the city.
Yeah Cingular has awesome coverage in DC. I have a cingular tower on my campus. Its unfortunate though that the metro decided to support Verizon underground considering its the only place you can get decent signal on verizon in the city.
MasterTick
Apr 4, 12:51 PM
Coming from a "Gun Person" (Own a HK .45 USP Tactical w/ GEMTECH Suppressor)
...All this "well they had it coming" BS is totally misplaced, the man who died was a human being. I only hope that the guard did not instigate the shooting.
If you read the article you would see it was justified.
...All this "well they had it coming" BS is totally misplaced, the man who died was a human being. I only hope that the guard did not instigate the shooting.
If you read the article you would see it was justified.
Popeye206
Mar 30, 11:24 AM
Let the "App" battle begin!
And all the lawyers rejoiced. :rolleyes:
And all the lawyers rejoiced. :rolleyes:
pengu
Sep 17, 07:54 PM
http://www1.sprintpcs.com/explore/servicePlansOptionsV2/FreeClearFairFlexiblePlans.jsp?FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=1436723&CURRENT_USER%3C%3EATR_SCID=ECOMM&CURRENT_USER%3C%3EATR_PCode=None&CURRENT_USER%3C%3EATR_cartState=group
um.. ok im not sure that is really a response. that just tells me that you can add a phone to your plan for $10.
um.. ok im not sure that is really a response. that just tells me that you can add a phone to your plan for $10.
Lightivity
Oct 5, 03:16 AM
Being 16x9 encoded is not the same thing as being anaporphically encoded.
Being 16x9 encoded just means that the video is meant to be viewed at a 16x9 ratio. Yes, the movies (that I have bought, anyway,) are 16x9. Specifically, Good Will Hunting is 640x344.
Anamorphically encoded refers to the act of 'stretching' 16x9 source to the height of 4x3; so that you effectively get 33% more 'vertical' data than horizontal. The TV is then supposed to 'squish' the video back to 16x9. So, for example, if you tell your DVD player that you have a '16x9 anamorphic' TV, it will output the widescreen video to fill the entire 720x480 resolution. If you tell it you have a '16x9 non-anamorphic', it will still be outputting 720x480, but will add black bars on the top and bottom, to achive a 'video' resolution of 720x405.
My TV, for example, has a special '16x9 anamorphic' mode where it actually re-aims its electron beam so that it's only drawing in the 16x9 area, but at a higher vertical density than it normally would. Meaning that I no longer have square pixels. Instead, I have pixels that are 1.33 times wider than tall. (More data packed in height-wise.)
If iTunes movies were sold as anamorphic, then Good Will Hunting would be 640x372, and rely on the TV to 'squish' the 372 high into the height that 344 should be. Thereby displaying more vertical information in the same space.
I know exactly what 'anamorphic' means, and it was precisely what I meant when saying "16x9-encoded", with the exception that 'anamorphic' is a totally confusing and natively incorrect term.
Why? Because nothing is ever stretched or squashed in digital video. The anamorphic concept has unfortunately been transfered from the celluloid world where light truly is pressed together on a 35-mm film frame only to be expanded in the theater. Now, maybe I should have added the word "enhanced for widescreen" after "16x9-encoded" but it doesn't matter: All 16x9-videomaterial is encoded so that all 720x480 pixels carry the approximate dimension of 16x9 with the aim of fitting a television that holds a display with 1.78:1 proportions. That is the very definition of 16x9. It is not anamorphical. It is not sqeezed. It is just 16x9 pixels spread across a compatible display.
Ehurtley, what I think you thought I meant, was aspect ratio. But that is something completely else. The aspect ratio is the proportions of the frame the director intended the action to be shown in, and there are several. One is 2.35:1, but the most common is 1.85:1, which most closely resembles the 1.78:1 frame that 16x9-encoded video fits right into. The only ones using the 1:78:1 aspect ratio is tv-productions. Film productions rarely use it (they stick to conventional 2.35:1 and 1.85:1).
Don't confuse the 1.78:1 aspect ratio which -- together with 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 -- is the artistic concept of framing action, with 16x9-encoding which is the technical solution of using a standard pixel resolution in a widescreen setup.
So, my question remains: is there any 16x9-encoded film content on iTunes Store?
Being 16x9 encoded just means that the video is meant to be viewed at a 16x9 ratio. Yes, the movies (that I have bought, anyway,) are 16x9. Specifically, Good Will Hunting is 640x344.
Anamorphically encoded refers to the act of 'stretching' 16x9 source to the height of 4x3; so that you effectively get 33% more 'vertical' data than horizontal. The TV is then supposed to 'squish' the video back to 16x9. So, for example, if you tell your DVD player that you have a '16x9 anamorphic' TV, it will output the widescreen video to fill the entire 720x480 resolution. If you tell it you have a '16x9 non-anamorphic', it will still be outputting 720x480, but will add black bars on the top and bottom, to achive a 'video' resolution of 720x405.
My TV, for example, has a special '16x9 anamorphic' mode where it actually re-aims its electron beam so that it's only drawing in the 16x9 area, but at a higher vertical density than it normally would. Meaning that I no longer have square pixels. Instead, I have pixels that are 1.33 times wider than tall. (More data packed in height-wise.)
If iTunes movies were sold as anamorphic, then Good Will Hunting would be 640x372, and rely on the TV to 'squish' the 372 high into the height that 344 should be. Thereby displaying more vertical information in the same space.
I know exactly what 'anamorphic' means, and it was precisely what I meant when saying "16x9-encoded", with the exception that 'anamorphic' is a totally confusing and natively incorrect term.
Why? Because nothing is ever stretched or squashed in digital video. The anamorphic concept has unfortunately been transfered from the celluloid world where light truly is pressed together on a 35-mm film frame only to be expanded in the theater. Now, maybe I should have added the word "enhanced for widescreen" after "16x9-encoded" but it doesn't matter: All 16x9-videomaterial is encoded so that all 720x480 pixels carry the approximate dimension of 16x9 with the aim of fitting a television that holds a display with 1.78:1 proportions. That is the very definition of 16x9. It is not anamorphical. It is not sqeezed. It is just 16x9 pixels spread across a compatible display.
Ehurtley, what I think you thought I meant, was aspect ratio. But that is something completely else. The aspect ratio is the proportions of the frame the director intended the action to be shown in, and there are several. One is 2.35:1, but the most common is 1.85:1, which most closely resembles the 1.78:1 frame that 16x9-encoded video fits right into. The only ones using the 1:78:1 aspect ratio is tv-productions. Film productions rarely use it (they stick to conventional 2.35:1 and 1.85:1).
Don't confuse the 1.78:1 aspect ratio which -- together with 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 -- is the artistic concept of framing action, with 16x9-encoding which is the technical solution of using a standard pixel resolution in a widescreen setup.
So, my question remains: is there any 16x9-encoded film content on iTunes Store?
dongmin
Sep 5, 03:40 PM
Quoted from an older thread that has been left behind:
Somebody cast doubt on the HDMI thing, I don't know - just seemed like the easiest option to get video into an iMac. You don't have to worry about all the different methods of getting TV (free to air, digital, cable) because if you have a HDMI-enabled receiver it would just plug into the back of the iMac. You'd need to use the receiver's remote to do all the channel changing but Apple could offer some sort of recording program. EyeHome could do something with it too? I'm no expert, just trying to look at a simple solution for a complicated, fragmented problem.I'm also not sure about the bittorrent thing. It's nice in theory, but even with bittorrent, movies will take a while to download. The problem with that is that you can't watch a bittorrent movie until the whole thing has downloaded, whereas with traditional quicktime downloads, you can start watching as soon as you have a decent enough buffer. And iTMS is all about instant gratification.
Somebody cast doubt on the HDMI thing, I don't know - just seemed like the easiest option to get video into an iMac. You don't have to worry about all the different methods of getting TV (free to air, digital, cable) because if you have a HDMI-enabled receiver it would just plug into the back of the iMac. You'd need to use the receiver's remote to do all the channel changing but Apple could offer some sort of recording program. EyeHome could do something with it too? I'm no expert, just trying to look at a simple solution for a complicated, fragmented problem.I'm also not sure about the bittorrent thing. It's nice in theory, but even with bittorrent, movies will take a while to download. The problem with that is that you can't watch a bittorrent movie until the whole thing has downloaded, whereas with traditional quicktime downloads, you can start watching as soon as you have a decent enough buffer. And iTMS is all about instant gratification.
cirus
Apr 22, 08:54 PM
An important detail is that one needs to add the graphics TDP to those Intel numbers, so there's still hope for some Llano goodness.
uh... They already are included. The graphics processor is on the die and the TDP of the chip is for the CPU and the GPU. So do the Llano CPU.
At least wikipedia it.
uh... They already are included. The graphics processor is on the die and the TDP of the chip is for the CPU and the GPU. So do the Llano CPU.
At least wikipedia it.