Posts by Gareth Ward
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
viewable audio for the ol eyes.
LOL.
Time for that long weekend methinks. -
HDMI but not HDCP support
Ouch. I actually thought the HDMI standard had HDCP within it, so I certainly would have been caught out with that...
-
I'm an HDMI fanboy now, even if it will let The Man stop us copying TV any time he likes. End-to-end digital video and audio in one slim cable.
Yeah, it's the fact that it enables full end-to-end digital (not just the cable) that excites (well, interests) me - one end being the conversion to digital within the camera capturing it, the other end being the last circuitry in your TV to turn that digital signal back into viewable audio for the ol eyes. Combine that with the resolution it's being captured at and you have the first real significant change in TV for aaaaaaaaaaaaaages in my mind.
and thanks for the quote-mess-fix =]
-
I wrote:
I don't recall how...
If I recall...How about THAT for short term memory... ahhhh... recall?
-
Also (and as I've mentioned before) bear in mid that digital integrated TVs (ie: a TV with a Freeview HD decoder built-in) are coming some time in the next six months.
Did that $6,500 Loewe have that? Back in the day when I used to sell them (CRT's mind, none of this new-fandangled plasma hoohaa), they already had models coming out with digital tuners included - I don't recall how, but around 2000ish we were watching a digital version of TV1 in Loewe's offices? If I recall it was coming off the Sky feed but was unencrypted so could be read by the European circuitry.
The beauty of them was that the signal stayed digital until the very last point of conversion for the screen - presumedly HDMI connections now achieve the same thing, but if you have to go composite, s-vid or component you are analogue converting in the box, just to digitally convert in the TV again.
-
When exactly was the last time Mr Ralston did primary research anyway? As far as I can tell the guys been doing commentary and analysis for years now...
-
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10498996
While it's just a singular "inside view", I think that perhaps some people like Mr Locke should explain why they think we should have instantly lambasted China for their troops "standing back and watching protestors" and "not moving to quell violence for 2-3 hrs" when Tibetans were throwing rocks and torching buildings.
As you alluded to Russell, there is an instant "China must be violently quelling peaceful dissent" meme whenever Tibet and China are mentioned but it's probably a Western arrogance towards both the people of Tibet and China when their complex struggle for some degree of autonomy boils down to that. -
the uncomfortable sight of realpolitik in action
Indeed, and it does sit a little uncomfortably but it is reality - you can be blistering in your comments at Zimbabwe because you know there is no other level of communication with them. But when it comes to China, or the US, or Australia, or Iran, or.... you have to comment within the context of that broader relationship. It ain't pretty, but it is politics. In fact, it's life - we all shape our commentary and opinions based on the contexts of our broader relationships.
The PMs eventual statement seemed of the right balance to me -
While the Chinese response certainly seems well over the top and undoubtedly had an "upscaling" effect (HD PUN!), I don't think some of the initial media reports that painted a "poor innocent sit-in monks beaten to death by the Red Army" picture were entirely accurate either.
The populace of Tibet was violently rioting in many cases and while they have every reason to feel that their calls for autonomy are going ignored, I never enjoy violence in response. China should have responded with less violence, of course.
Keith Locke is taking it a little too far for an MP in my opinion... -
I don't get the attraction of diamonds anyway. As daleaway says, most people can't tell them from glass. Why not just use glass, if it's the look that people like?
It's the representation of rarity on earth. And because 50Cent has them in his teeth.