"ChairmanOfTheBored" <RUBored@crackasmile.org> wrote in message
news:23mnr3hbfe5cuo61tf6djqqdpf7h1v7i89@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 16:14:29 -0500, FDR <nospam@asdfkdskkl.com> wrote:
>
>>Since you've added no value to the conversation you can step away.
>>
>>>
>
>
> Don't you know yet that you do not give commands to people in Usenet,
> you retarded ****?
=========================
Yet you do it all the time.
What a sweet little man you are.
"FDR" <nospam@asdfkdskkl.com> wrote in message
news:47b774aa$0$30699$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> ChairmanOfTheBored wrote a lot of crap!
>
> Anyone who needs to use "stupid" and "idiot" to berate someone to win an
> argument has a failed argument.
===========================
Not to mention his 'tard this and 'tard that....
Not since junior high have I heard such child-like blather.
Rod Speed wrote:
> Doug Jacobs <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote
>> FDR <nospam@asdfkdskkl.com> wrote
>
>>>> Sure, but to think that purely virtual downloads will replace
>>>> them is a silly statement. After all, books are still very
>>>> popular, despite having the technology to completely replace
>>>> them with digital files for the better part of a decade.
>
>>> They just haven't found a good device to supplant them. Eventually they will.
>
>> I'm not so sure about that... I think there'll always be a place -
>> even if it's just sentimental - for books, and even paper documents.
>
> Maybe. I'd much rather have everything in electronic form tho, even
> with stuff that some would prefer in paper form like say geneology stuff.
>
>> Even when we get to the point where we have digital paper, and
>> pen-sized computers like the ones described in Stephenson's
>> 'Diamond Age', or the datapads you see in Star Trek, I still feel
>> there's always going to be a group of people who appreciate
>> the idea of a good old fashioned book.
>
> Sure, there will always be some like that. Some are still into horses and
> carraiges as a hobby, but its a microscopic part of transportation now.
>
> Just like bugger all bother with physical film anymore,
> anyone with a clue prefers it in DVD format now.
>
>> The heft, the "old fashioned" method of turning the pages, to say nothing of the
>> feeling of history - none of this will ever be fully replicated by artifical means.
>
> Yes, but thats a microscopic part of the total and will always be now.
>
>> It's much the same way that there's a bustling market for antiques today.
>
> Sure, but collectors are an entirely different animal to those who actually read those books.
>
> Specially if we could have a decent system which allows you to read the
> full book that google has scanned for a reasonable price of say 50c etc.
>
>> Besides which, if electronic was the wave of
>> the future, the readers would already be here.
>
> They are. I no longer bother to print manuals anymore, and much prefer
> pdfs because you can search in them and you cant with a printed manual.
>
>> There have been multiple attempts over the years, each sucessive
>> generation addressed problems from previous models like display,
>> contrast, battery life, ease of use, etc. Yet none of them has taken off,
>
> Basically because the media hasnt been done properly yet.
>
> They would if you could get the full book from google for
> 50c or even $2 so they are competitive with the physical
> book exchanges that so many who read much use.
>
>> and bookstores remain in the business of selling essentially
>> words printed on highly processed, sliced blocks of wood.
>
> For the same reason.
>
> You dont see too many still selling movies in physical film format tho.
>
> The most obvious advantage with the electronic replacement is that you
> can have 10K books on it trivially, if you dont care about the legality of that.
>
> Thats a non trivial advantage portability wise, if say you are
> away from home or in hospital etc and even for at home.
>
>
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 13:20:01 -0500, FDR <nospam@asdfkdskkl.com> wrote:
>flambe wrote:
>> Being a curmudgeon is one thing, seeing where things are headed is another.
>> As the internet pipeline widens nearly all content delivery will move there,
>> particularly the delivery of pre-recorded materials.
>> DVD has made inroads in portable devices but the market will move to an ipod
>> style download model over the long term, as will what people now regard as
>> OTA/Cable/Satellite television.
>> Unfortunately in the rush to move to this model consumers will have to
>> endure compression schemes as bad or worse than what we are now seeing.
>> However as bandwidth increases this will improve if consumers demand it:
>> alas most consumers are morons.
>>
>>
>
>Wait until your pc becomes a cheap applicance where nearly all programs
>will be run from a remote server. Yourhard drive will be just a
>redundant back up drive.
I don't think that will happen on a large scale. The reason being for
business you like to keep your information at home and out of other
people's houses. The same is true for personal finances. Then there
is the privacy issues that would make today's tracking seem mundane.
Think of all your information being on servers where a subpoena could
make it available. Forget the subpoena, think of the present day
electronics eavesdropping without a warrant and the potential for
misuse.
Think of having to log into the net every time you want to type a
document. That alone would probably eliminate 30 % of the overall
users. Laptops are now outselling desktops and workstations. They need
resident apps.
I've even noticed several large (locally based) multinational
corporations going back to doing their own computer work instead of
outsourcing or contracting.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 00:00:18 -0500, FDR <nospam@asdfkdskkl.com> wrote:
>Doug Jacobs wrote:
>> In alt.video.dvd FDR <nospam@asdfkdskkl.com> wrote:
>>> Let's see. People sitting at home right now can press a few buttons and
>>> have the HD movie running in a matter of minutes, whereas you have to
>>> drive to a store, peruse the differing Blu Ray players, pick out a
>>> movie, then come home and hook it all up 2 hours later. Yeah, I could
>>> see how Blu Ray has that ease of access thing covered.
>>
>> You convinently skip the fact that none of the download/streaming/PPV
>> systems in use today can match the video quality of a blu-ray disc. Sure,
>> for rentals, download/streaming/PPV is fine. But for the movie or home
>> theater enthusiast? They're unacceptable for one's favorite movies.
>
>And the enthusiast market is the same ones that buy $1000 cables for
>their systems.
You're an idiot. And just so you know, dip****, there are cable sets
out there that are $17k. $1000 ain't ****.
ChairmanOfTheBored <RUBored@crackasmile.org> wrote:
>>And the enthusiast market is the same ones that buy $1000 cables for
>>their systems.
>
> You're an idiot. And just so you know, dip****, there are cable sets
>out there that are $17k. $1000 ain't ****.
Interesting. Good to know there are people out there who are actually
17x as stupid as the ones who pay $1k.
--
Even he, to whom most things that most people
would think were pretty smart were pretty dumb,
thought it was pretty smart.
Re: Online Hi-Def vs. Blu-Ray 
Linear Mode
