Comment Re:lossy is not an issue (Score 1) 130
There is a $49.99 codec now for windows. Works better than the Apple codec on a Mac for us. It is slow though, they haven't accellerated it for SSE3 yet.
There is a $49.99 codec now for windows. Works better than the Apple codec on a Mac for us. It is slow though, they haven't accellerated it for SSE3 yet.
Or, just use the ProRes or DNxHD.
VHS is 4:1:1 and incredibly soft. ProRes and DNxHD are both so lightly compressed and 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 that you'll never notice the difference.
It doesn't need to be Uncompressed. You might want it to be 10bit but even that would be pushing it.
The only time you really need uncompressed footage is when you're dealing with noisy footage which is difficult to compress. VHS footage is so soft that there is very little entropy to compress so the 4:1 or 6:1 compression of DNxHD for instance would be effectively lossless.
Adequate leg room isn't a premium feature. It's simple human decency to allow taller than average passengers the ability to sit with reasonable comfort without forcing them to pay more for the "privilege". There is nothing wrong with airlines waiving premium seating fees for unusually tall passengers to get them a adequate leg room.
If you're tall you're also probably making a few thousand more per year than your shorter co-passengers. You're also probably male, which means you make a little more money. All told being tall generally gives you enough benefits in life that you can pay $20 more for more legroom. I wish a better seat at a concert be able to see over your freakishly tall head was only $20.
A 2004 study by psychologist Timothy A. Judge, Ph.D., of the University of Florida, and researcher Daniel M. Cable, Ph.D., of the University of North Carolina, found that every inch of height amounts to a salary increase of about $789 per year (the study controlled for gender, weight and age).
but when even consumers that care about it have trouble finding out exactly which aircraft serves a route for their date of travel and what the seat configuration is, it's hard to blame consumers for not taking it into account.
Go to SeatGuru.com enter in the flight number and date. Tada! But even that is a misrepresentation of how hard it is. Almost every single seat on every single flight is the same. A normal economy seat is about 30" and a normal premium economy is about 34 or 35". Almost nobody buys premium economy even though it usually costs about $20 - $100 more. The airlines try very hard to advertise these seats but people just aren't willing to pay. Clearly people have decided that they prefer cramped seats to spacious economy seats even though the whine and moan. "Oh man economy is so terrible these days!" "Are you willing to spend $20 on an economy plus?" "No!"
Tall people can afford premium economy.
A 2004 study by psychologist Timothy A. Judge, Ph.D., of the University of Florida, and researcher Daniel M. Cable, Ph.D., of the University of North Carolina, found that every inch of height amounts to a salary increase of about $789 per year (the study controlled for gender, weight and age).
SeatGuru just asks for the day and flight number of your flight. You don't have to tell them what configuration is in use since it looks up the aircraft automatically.
I'm 5'11" and there is plenty of room in Economy plus. If you're a frequent flyer you can get Economy Plus for free when you book a ticket on United, I assume Delta is the same for their frequent flyers.
Over the last 5 years United Airlines has had an average profit of 0.2% Delta : 7.3%. Southwest: 3.2% American: -5.3% (loss). JetBlue 2.9%. Those are very low profit margins. I'm one of the first people to call for government intervention when warranted but the airlines don't need to be bailed out or subsidized just because people aren't willing to pay the cost of an airline's seat. If people want lots of leg room or they're slightly taller they can pay for the extra space they want. If they want a super cheap, basement discount seat in exchange for a little less comfort then I don't see a problem with that either. Should we outlaw small cars too because they don't have large trunks?
Either one of two statements is true:
1) Access to air travel is essential to people of all economic means.
2) Air travel is a luxury.
If #1 is true then we shouldn't be forcing airlines to increase their prices. We shouldn't force airlines to increase their seat spacing since it would price many people out an already expensive product.
If #2 is true then we shouldn't do force airlines to increase their seat spacing because it's simply a luxury good and if people want a slightly nicer luxury they can pay for additional expense if it's truly valuable to them. And if someone really wants to know exactly what kind of seat they're in for when booking... they can enter it into SeatGuru and check.
I think he's confusing Salon.com with Slate.com since they both start with "S".
Ummm, Bing is not Yahoo. Yahoo is Bing.
3% isn't great. But Apple only has 10%. So it's not *that* far behind what most people consider the leader.
IE is dead second. Well behind Chrome but way ahead of Firefox etc.
Bing is also the default search engine for the iPhone. So I guess that means Apple is in on this conspiracy to cram Bing down everyone's throats.
And ironically specialized hardware is better than the CPU at raytracing and Intel might lose that battle as well after being its lone champion for so long.
Compression quality can increase with longer processing time. If they are pre-processing frames then they can spend a few extra milliseconds on compression encoding and decoding quality.
Yes. Budgenator is correct, we do need to recognize that the models are wrong. They are
Another way to put that is: "Why is it that Tesla and SpaceX are so disproportionately doing things worthy of the News for Nerds title?"
Imagine if there was some competition for cool new science in the consumer space.
To be fair, the fact that it's a problem now isn't Lockheed Martin's fault, it's the US government's fault for denying access to the engine.
I say handle it like COTS. Offer a contract for X launches at Y price. If Lockheed wants to continue flying the Atlas they'll find a solution that matches Y price. If another vendor such as SpaceX can delivery Y price then problem solved. If both deliver, all the better.
However it's important to keep in mind that we already have 1 launch vehicle that is capable of fulfilling the air forces missions. This is about having a redundant second option. So unlike COTS where we needed multiple solutions to maintain competition--we currently have one viable solution we just would like to have a second one. So if one or the other is cheaper I would say no need to go with both as soon as it's viable.
Are you suggesting that slowly transitioning a totalitarian state run by a single dictator into some semblance of a democracy is comparable to a cancer?
I was with you all along the way until you concluded that the elimination of a dictator was a bad outcome. I would say the Bureaucrats won as did Rome when freed from the tyranny of the Caesars.
I tell them to turn to the study of mathematics, for it is only there that they might escape the lusts of the flesh. -- Thomas Mann, "The Magic Mountain"
