Comment Re:Lift? (Score 2) 83
Care to cite any evidence of that?
Care to explain why you had to ask?
Google is your friend. (Sometimes, anyway.) So is Wikipedia.
Care to cite any evidence of that?
Care to explain why you had to ask?
Google is your friend. (Sometimes, anyway.) So is Wikipedia.
We're talking about blue ray, not broadcasting.
Will you at least attempt to read and understand the goddamned article? Look at the last sentence I quoted. It says In digital measurement, the display resolution would be given in pixels per inch.
Do you STILL need to have that explained to you again?
You are seriously suggesting that common use of the word for decades is in fact not a widely accepted definition of the word, but is an incorrect definition of the word because this wasn't a correct definition several decades ago?
No, I'm saying it's incorrect because it's not the correct definition RIGHT NOW.
Common usage of words changes all the time. But that doesn't make the technical definition of the word any different.
For example: people now use the word "schizophrenia" to mean something that is completely different from the actual, technical meaning of the word. But it's technical meaning still hasn't changed at all. People are using it incorrectly, and it will continue to be incorrect as long as they use it that way.
Common usage aside, the technical definition of resolution hasn't changed, and it's not going to. So you can use it however you want, but yes, you'll still be wrong.
Bingo!
You can't make promises or covenants of this nature with the intent of even remotely considering to revoke them. Your successors are also bound to them. Typically someone will bring up Promissory Estoppel and then raise Bad Faith- and then move to dismiss the case you brought against them...and most typically get it.
Says who? IANAL, but there's a hole in your reasoning. And that gaping hole is: putting something in the public domain is NOT a "contract"!!! By definition a contract, by ancient common law and still today, requires "consideration" on both sides. When you put something in the public domain, you receive no consideration. So it's not a contract by any stretch of the imagination. To quote the article you referenced:
Certain elements must be established to invoke promissory estoppel. A promisorâ"one who makes a promiseâ"makes a gratuitous promise that he should reasonably have expected to induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promiseeâ"one to whom a promise has been made. The promisee justifiably relies on the promise. A substantial detrimentâ"that is, an economic lossâ"ensues to the promisee from action or forbearance. Injustice can be avoided only by enforcing the promise.
Note the second sentence. Particularly the part about "promise that he should reasonably have expected to induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee". That is a description of "consideration". In the case of placing your private works in the public domain, there is seldom any consideration. So there is no "expectation" of return on the part of the donor, which as your own article stipulates is necessary for promissory estoppel to occur.
Climate Change Deniers have taken to calling themselves Skeptics precisely because of this negative connotation to our cause, just as AGW proponents changed to talk of Climate Change when they saw that Global Warming was no longer winning over the masses with their fear-mongering.
Yep, it is hilarious considering that those deniers are part of the religious right (often stating their reason for denying climate change is something about god). To them, skeptics have the negative connotation. I guess they can't ask for people to believe their claims "on faith" anymore.
Wrong on both counts.
First, your revisionist history does not match recorded history. Most of the people you call deniers have ALWAYS labeled themselves skeptics. There are some just plain disbelievers, who disbelieve based on faith. But the majority of them follow the actual science.
Second, most of these skeptics are NOT right-wing religious fanatics.
Both of these myths have been promoted by the True Believers: the alarmists who can't back up their claims with real science.
The recent declaration of 2014 as "the hottest year" -- when it wasn't anything of the kind -- is a wonderful illustration of the idiocy behind CO2 warming alarmism. Self-described Climate Scientists claimed the satellite temperature record would be the most accurate ever. And it is. But now that the satellite data is disproving their pet theory, they just leave that data out.
It's really quite hilarious.
It's also what's on Wikipedia.
You didn't read far enough, wise guy.
Note that for broadcast television standards the use of the word resolution here is a misnomer, though common. The term "display resolution" is usually used to mean pixel dimensions, the number of pixels in each dimension (e.g. 1920 x 1080), which does not tell anything about the pixel density of the display on which the image is actually formed: broadcast television resolution properly refers to the pixel density, the number of pixels per unit distance or area, not total number of pixels. In digital measurement, the display resolution would be given in pixels per inch.
Just as I wrote earlier.
Furthermore, pixel density is a relation between resolution and physical size, so if you think resolution means pixel density, you learned things the wrong way.
NO.
Pixel density is measured in pixels per inch. THAT is the relation between pixels and physical size, just like physical density is a relationship between mass and size. It is an "intrinsic" property, meaning it doesn't matter how big your bar of gold is, it still has the same density.
Resolution, which today is measured in Pixels Per Inch (or Centimeter), is also an intrinsic property, in that sense. The resolution of your screen has nothing at all to do with its size. A screen that is 1 inch square can easily have the same resolution, in PPI, as a screen that is 120" diagonally. It makes no difference. However, if they did have the same resolution, the SIZE in pixels of the 120" unit would be vastly greater.
You are arguing exactly the case that I was explaining is wrong. Resolution is size-independent.
1080p is a DISPLAY SIZE measured in pixels. (Plus the 'p' part, which is a different matter entirely). My telephone is 720p. But because my phone is small, its resolution, in PPI, is far higher than most televisions.
This was the whole point I was getting at originally. What most people (and even manufacturers) CALL "resolution" isn't. It's a misuse of the word. Resolution is a ratio, it has a scientific definition, it is measurable, and it has nothing to do with total number of pixels on a screen.
The relationship between the size of the display and its resolution is the "dot pitch" as in the distance between the pixels.
Almost but not quite. Dot pitch is a measure used on CRT screens. And it is, on a color screen, the distance between dots of the same color, just as you say.
On modern pixel-based displays, however, the resolution is measured in Pixels Per Inch (or Pixels Per Cm), which is not a distance but a ratio. Still the same basic idea.
That's exactly what it means: resolution is the number of pixels, always has been. There is no direct relationship between the size of a display and its resolution. If a company wanted to make a 60" display with a resolution of 192x108 pixels, they could.
No, that isn't waht it means. What you are describing is the SIZE, in pixels, of the display.
In order to get the actual resolution, you divide the number of pixels in a given linear distance by that distance; the result is Pixels Per Inch or PPI. Notice the "per" in there: that means it is a ratio, not a simple scalar number like your SIZE is.
In practice, not all displays have square pixels. In that case some math trickery is used to come up with the "effective" PPI, which is your resolution, as opposed to the size.
Don't misuse the word then try to tell me it "always has been". That's just plain false. "Never was" would be closer to the truth.
There is no idea or no concept of "normal" for a distance for a TV. There is a concept of "optimal" for any given resolution, but just because something doesn't fit your use case does not mean it is applied globally. And while you're right there is almost no 4k media in current circulation this is much like the early cases of 3D or the early cases of HD.
No matter what, you're going to have something at least approximately a bell curve. And "normal" is going to surround the peak portion of that curve.
Don't blame me. I didn't make it up.
This is not about recording anyone at dinner.
What *I* wrote very definitely and clearly WAS about recording someone at dinner.
So you are way out of line. Maybe you meant to reply to someone else?
What I will not put up with is this dumb hate on Glass trend that seems so popular.
I don't blame you. But I'm not one of those people. I'm not particularly impressed by Glass, but neither am I irrationally afraid of it.
I do, however, think there are standards of etiquette that would require you to not record things with it under some circumstances. But that's a behavior issue, not a tech issue.
But what we are going to see is a gradual shift from defining our displays in terms of absolute resolution in favor of pixel density.
It happened a long time ago.
Technically, "resolution" already refers to pixel density. People have come to incorrectly use the word resolution to mean size in pixels, but that's not what it actually means.
It's a naive, domestic operating system without any breeding, but I think you'll be amused by its presumption.
