On 01/05/2013 07:01 AM, Timignored_mailbox@yahoo.com.au wrote:
I don't know about elsewhere, but here in Australia, high resolution TV has been a bit of a flop. We only have about 3 high res TV channels out of about 16, and much of what they put to air is standard resolution, anyway. And, oddly enough, one of the better looking programs is a 1980s UK TV program shot using 900 line resolution tube cameras; bumped up to high res it looks very nice, compare that to modern 4:3 CCD studio cameras which rarely went above 750 line resolution. Then there's the several heavily compressed standard resolution channels from the same station that looks like VHS is being put to air. And people don't seem to be complaining about it, nor even noticing. Seriously, why buy a $1000+ high res TV set when there's little of it to watch.
HD will come. If you like sports you might hit on your local station to broadcast Oz footie in HD. In North America, CBS has, for some years, broadcast (OTA) what appears to be a completely uncompressed HD stream and watching football ( American style) in that format is awesome. As a 'benchmark' most HD programs hereabouts take 5 to 6 G/hour for storage. Some programs (The Good Wife is one example) regularly takes 8G/hr and the difference is noticeable. I get that program OTA from 2 different stations: one at 8G and one at 5G. The difference is noticeable. NFL football runs 11-12G/hr in 720p. G
Tim:
I don't know about elsewhere, but here in Australia, high resolution TV has been a bit of a flop.
R. G. Newbury:
HD will come. If you like sports you might hit on your local station to broadcast Oz footie in HD.
We had a sports-only HD channel, that eventually caved in and stopped being sports-only. Sports would be a good example for a need for HD, with all that text on the screen, and a tiny ball in a field of players. Unfortunately, most large screen TVs are LCD, and they're crap at fast motion (as a camera pans across the field, the screen is really blurry - some of that's the MPEG compression, a lot of that is technology of an LCD screen).
Digital TV has been the decimation of our television stations. It cost an outrageous fortune to replace the transmitter, and all the production equipment, and our local stations have become little more than a relay of Sydney television, just with local adverts and a tabloid excuse for a news service. Two of them have left their studios to shift to mere office space. Having to change to HD, just a few years later, is another expense that the stations don't want. Analogue equipment might last twenty years, and not need endless fiddling. Digital equipment needs replacing every few years, and has required daily management by engineering.
If you want to make a disaster, digitise/computerise it.
On 01/05/2013 02:20 PM, Tim wrote:
Tim:
I don't know about elsewhere, but here in Australia, high resolution TV has been a bit of a flop.
R. G. Newbury:
HD will come. If you like sports you might hit on your local station to broadcast Oz footie in HD.
We had a sports-only HD channel, that eventually caved in and stopped being sports-only. Sports would be a good example for a need for HD, with all that text on the screen, and a tiny ball in a field of players. Unfortunately, most large screen TVs are LCD, and they're crap at fast motion (as a camera pans across the field, the screen is really blurry - some of that's the MPEG compression, a lot of that is technology of an LCD screen).
Digital TV has been the decimation of our television stations. It cost an outrageous fortune to replace the transmitter, and all the production equipment, and our local stations have become little more than a relay of Sydney television, just with local adverts and a tabloid excuse for a news service. Two of them have left their studios to shift to mere office space. Having to change to HD, just a few years later, is another expense that the stations don't want. Analogue equipment might last twenty years, and not need endless fiddling. Digital equipment needs replacing every few years, and has required daily management by engineering.
If you want to make a disaster, digitise/computerise it.
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -r 2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686
Wow Tim, You're still running FC9 on an internet connected device? I can understand why you don't accept email.
[mlapier@mushroom ~]$ uname -r 2.6.32-279.19.1.el6.i686
On Sat, 2013-01-05 at 14:51 -0500, Mark LaPierre wrote:
Wow Tim, You're still running FC9 on an internet connected device? I can understand why you don't accept email.
That's not the reason... ;-) That's an anti-spam technique. From over a decade of participating in public forums, on various transports, I know that any published email address that can receive mail receives a deluge of spam. By auto-deleting *ALL* mail on that address, but reading mail received at another, kept private, address. I don't have to deal with the spam. I don't have to use a spam filter, which frequently gets it wrong (marking ham as spam, or spam as ham), meaning that you either lose mail, or have to check the spam mailbox so much that there's no point using spam filtering. I don't look at the mailbox for the public address, I just have a filter delete all mail going into it, unless it contains a certain magic word. I only look at the unpublished address, which receive no spam, at all.
As far as Fedora 9 goes, it's the last release of Fedora that I actually like, *and* runs well on this hardware (a laptop, and on low spec desktop computer). Fedora 11 is the last version that I've tried on the laptop that runs well, but I don't really like it. And it's a major pain to update an OS and keep data (backups, restores, fiddly installs trying not to delete data, or the disastrously risky and messy to clean-up afterwards "upgrade over the top"). On this laptop, Fedora 9 works how I want it to, and so does the software I'm using with it. There really is no need to change it, until web browser incompatibilities become too extreme. It's about the only thing that really forces obsolescence, the Fedora 9 software I'm using seems to be fairly stable and bug free, as far as any software goes.
On other computers, that I don't normally post on, I'm using newer releases. You'll occasionally see a post from Fedora 17, from me. And, more rarely, Ubuntu.
Am 06.01.2013 08:07, schrieb Tim:
As far as Fedora 9 goes, it's the last release of Fedora that I actually like, *and* runs well on this hardware (a laptop, and on low spec desktop computer).
so thats a problem, but it needs to be solved
Fedora 11 is the last version that I've tried on the laptop that runs well, but I don't really like it.
so you stay on a HORRIBLE unsecure system forever?
boy you are using simply the wrong distribution go and install CentOS5
And it's a major pain to update an OS and keep data (backups, restores, fiddly installs trying not to delete data, or the disastrously risky and messy to clean-up afterwards "upgrade over the top").
come on i am doing it twice a year for around 30 setups most of them are production servers, the rest workstations
there is no problem with YUM, but yes, the way YOU let outdate a setup upgrades does not work at all
On this laptop, Fedora 9 works how I want it to, and so does the software I'm using with it. There really is no need to change it, until web browser incompatibilities become too extreme.
this is bullshit, as long as you are connectd to the internet you have to take care about security because this is no longer your private thing if your crippled machine is used from third parties to attack others
the Fedora 9 software I'm using seems to be fairly stable and bug free, as far as any software goes.
BUG FREE?
the F9 kernel has security bugs as big as a house the browser has security bugs as big as a city
Tim:
Fedora 11 is the last version that I've tried on the laptop that runs well, but I don't really like it.
Reindl Harald:
so you stay on a HORRIBLE unsecure system forever?
Do you want to point out actual insecurities, or just presume that merely reading internet emails or viewing webpages actually does put me at risk?
This isn't Windows. I don't run as root. I don't expose my computers as services available to the internet. And I don't subscribe to the wild paranoia that some people do when it comes to computing.
boy you are using simply the wrong distribution go and install CentOS5
Tried that, at times. Unfortunately, last time I tried it, it wasn't good enough. And, as I've said, changing an OS on a system that you want to use, keep using, don't want to stop it from doing what it's currently, successfully, doing is a pain.
And it's a major pain to update an OS and keep data (backups, restores, fiddly installs trying not to delete data, or the disastrously risky and messy to clean-up afterwards "upgrade over the top").
come on i am doing it twice a year for around 30 setups most of them are production servers, the rest workstations
I don't care what *YOU* do with your systems. I find it a pain changing a running system, and have it still do what I want it to, on the new system. I don't do it unless I really have to. I've not been convinced that I need to.
Something tells me that these servers and workstations that you change are probably not ones that *you* use, too. You probably don't care, or are unaware, of any inconveniences that presents to those who are using those systems.
On this laptop, Fedora 9 works how I want it to, and so does the software I'm using with it. There really is no need to change it, until web browser incompatibilities become too extreme.
this is bullshit, as long as you are connectd to the internet you have to take care about security because this is no longer your private thing if your crippled machine is used from third parties to attack others
Again, I repeat. Be factual about this, not all "I'm scared of the bogeyman" about it.
the Fedora 9 software I'm using seems to be fairly stable and bug free, as far as any software goes.
BUG FREE?
the F9 kernel has security bugs as big as a house the browser has security bugs as big as a city
And so does nearly every single bit of software, ever released. As far as I'm concerned, it's as bug free *as* another system. And the current one is as bugged and as dangerous old ones, as far as I'm concerned.
On 01/06/2013 08:35 AM, Tim wrote:
Tim:
Fedora 11 is the last version that I've tried on the laptop that runs well, but I don't really like it.
Perhaps a "rolling upgrade" system, like PCLinuxOs would solve some of the problems you mentioned with updating Fedora. There are various GUIs available for PCLOS, so one of them should please you.
BTW, I'm with you--I really doubt that your system is likely to be infected-- the nasties are all written for Windows. Nobody spends time writing infections for a system with only 2 0r 3 percent of the market. (Nor counting servers-- those folks pay special attention to infections, even if they never find any!)
--doug
Am 06.01.2013 19:59, schrieb Doug:
Nobody spends time writing infections for a system with only 2 0r 3 percent of the market. (Nor counting servers-- those folks pay special attention to infections, even if they never find any!)
bruhahahahaha wake up
On 01/05/2013 02:20 PM, Tim wrote:
Tim:
I don't know about elsewhere, but here in Australia, high resolution TV has been a bit of a flop.
R. G. Newbury:
HD will come. If you like sports you might hit on your local station to broadcast Oz footie in HD.
We had a sports-only HD channel, that eventually caved in and stopped being sports-only. Sports would be a good example for a need for HD, with all that text on the screen, and a tiny ball in a field of players. Unfortunately, most large screen TVs are LCD, and they're crap at fast motion (as a camera pans across the field, the screen is really blurry - some of that's the MPEG compression, a lot of that is technology of an LCD screen).
Digital TV has been the decimation of our television stations. It cost an outrageous fortune to replace the transmitter, and all the production equipment, and our local stations have become little more than a relay of Sydney television, just with local adverts and a tabloid excuse for a news service. Two of them have left their studios to shift to mere office space. Having to change to HD, just a few years later, is another expense that the stations don't want. Analogue equipment might last twenty years, and not need endless fiddling. Digital equipment needs replacing every few years, and has required daily management by engineering.
If you want to make a disaster, digitise/computerise it.
I can sympathize with this, I am not one of those people who are impressed with this generation's sudden desire to go "mobile". Tablets, and iPhones, along with all these other "smart" devices appear as toys to me....I prefer laptops and desktops, and wired connections, because to me they're more reliable than wireless. I don't know that keeping TV technology in an analog state is better or worse, since to me TV....is just TV. I can SEE differences when you compare HD to regular television, but is there REALLY such a thing as "HD RADIO"?.....as I've heard some stations proclaiming?...I mean....we....as humans can only hear sounds in a specific range....nothing above....nor below....so if thats the case...how can you "improve" my radio experience with "high definition" radio?...I dunno.....just seems like a lot fo things are more for Show & Tell than anything else these days....
EGO II
On Sat, 2013-01-05 at 14:54 -0500, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
is there REALLY such a thing as "HD RADIO"?.....as I've heard some stations proclaiming?
Dunno, digital radio hasn't taken off, here, either. The receivers are very expensive, all portable ones only have a mono speaker, the battery life is very short, reception is lousy. And, unlike analogue, where reception just gets noisier with distance, digital radio goes like mobile phones, where the audio just cuts out every fraction of a second, or completely dies.
Traditional analogue radio and TV has less than HiFi reproduction. It's only 15 Hz to 15 kHz, whereas HiFi usually is 20 Hz to 20 kHz. It's easier to manage a narrower bandwidth, most older people can't hear much beyond the narrower bandwidth, and most people (of any age) don't hear the full bandwidth when in a noisy environment, anyway (listening to the radio in the car, or TV in the home). And there's very little dynamic range (the ratio between quietest and loudest sounds has been squashed together), with the stations doing this for ease of listening in a noisy environment (make the quiet sounds louder, and squash all the louder sounds down to similarly loud levels - notice how a whisper, normal speach, and a yell are all strangely similar in volume, on TV), and as a way of dealing with electrical noise on the sound (make everything louder than the hiss of the noise floor).
Digital radio has the ability to improve on this, to sound even better than compact audio discs: Have a wider bandwidth, because it can handle it (the analogue transmitter constraints don't apply. And the ability to handle a full dynamic range, allowing the receiver to be adjusted to provide compression where it's useful (e.g. the radio in the car), or none where it's actually a nuisance (e.g. the music lover listening to a concert in their lounge, without any kids making a ruckus in the room). But suffers immensely from the heavy data compression being applied to the stream, as stations try to squeeze umpteen stations into the same radio bandwidth. Never mind the reception issues, digital radio is often worse in audio quality than analogue.
On 01/05/2013 11:54 AM, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
On 01/05/2013 02:20 PM, Tim wrote:
Tim:
I don't know about elsewhere, but here in Australia, high resolution TV has been a bit of a flop.
R. G. Newbury:
HD will come. If you like sports you might hit on your local station to broadcast Oz footie in HD.
We had a sports-only HD channel, that eventually caved in and stopped being sports-only. Sports would be a good example for a need for HD, with all that text on the screen, and a tiny ball in a field of players. Unfortunately, most large screen TVs are LCD, and they're crap at fast motion (as a camera pans across the field, the screen is really blurry - some of that's the MPEG compression, a lot of that is technology of an LCD screen).
Digital TV has been the decimation of our television stations. It cost an outrageous fortune to replace the transmitter, and all the production equipment, and our local stations have become little more than a relay of Sydney television, just with local adverts and a tabloid excuse for a news service. Two of them have left their studios to shift to mere office space. Having to change to HD, just a few years later, is another expense that the stations don't want. Analogue equipment might last twenty years, and not need endless fiddling. Digital equipment needs replacing every few years, and has required daily management by engineering.
If you want to make a disaster, digitise/computerise it.
I can sympathize with this, I am not one of those people who are impressed with this generation's sudden desire to go "mobile". Tablets, and iPhones, along with all these other "smart" devices appear as toys to me....I prefer laptops and desktops, and wired connections, because to me they're more reliable than wireless. I don't know that keeping TV technology in an analog state is better or worse, since to me TV....is just TV. I can SEE differences when you compare HD to regular television, but is there REALLY such a thing as "HD RADIO"?.....as I've heard some stations proclaiming?...I mean....we....as humans can only hear sounds in a specific range....nothing above....nor below....so if thats the case...how can you "improve" my radio experience with "high definition" radio?...I dunno.....just seems like a lot fo things are more for Show & Tell than anything else these days....
HD Radio stands for Hybrid Digital, not High Definition. The tuner simply uses digital signal whenever it can to reproduce audio without losses in quality. Unlike analog radio, though, when signal is too low, you don't get anything at all. The best use case is probably in a moving car -- driving through a dead spot becomes unnoticeable (vs. hissing noise of analog radio)
-
Doug -
EGO-II.1 -
Konstantin Svist -
Mark LaPierre -
R. G. Newbury -
Reindl Harald -
Tim