b3ta.com board
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Messageboard » XXX » Message 9209362 (Thread)

# Sick of conspiracies

So here's a new one!
(, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 1:03, archived)
# Are you Catnipppp in disguise?
(, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 1:08, archived)
# Negative
(But I do like your posts.)
(, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 1:12, archived)
# hopefully he has better taste in music....
(, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 1:18, archived)
# Either way, I like the cathode ray tube,
and I like vinyl records.

And wall-sized tellies full of mess are obviously shit. Get the technology sorted out before foisting it on us without any alternative, please.
(, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 1:11, archived)
# Bet they're not as much fun to smash
unless they belong to someone you don't like, I guess.
(, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 1:23, archived)
# I must concur with you
on the vinyl front. It does sound better, mainly for its broadness of register. And its massiveness :D

But, I do like these new small TV screen thingys :D
(, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 1:24, archived)
# oh pish.
I'm an audio snob and love vinyl but no amount of nostalgia is going to make it sound better than a FLAC lossless digital recording from the source. I know all about how less of the waveform is captured but if there is a human being on the planet that can tell that audibly then he is an evolutionary freak.
It's much the same with geeks who talk about how many super frames per second their latest water-cooled video card can run the latest version of twat monkey 3 with full spec. Here's the deal muppets, the human eye can not register beyond 25 frames per second, that's why PAL is 50hz interleaved.
(, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 1:31, archived)
# ou can still know it is happenening
which helps you feel smug.


plus twat monkey 3 is a wonderful game.
(, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 1:37, archived)
# You talking about yourself again? ;)
I do agree, modern stuff should stick with what it is.

However, the majority of what I listen to is pre1980. So, Vinyl was what it was made to be played on. For me, it said it all with the digital remaster of The Who Live at Leeds. They whacked it onto CD, spent years on it, but it had none of the quality or charm of the original.
(, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 1:41, archived)
# You've never actually tested this, have you?
Just this second loaded up a game. Capped its frame rate to 25 (75htz progressive scan monitor), and verified that it is indeed 25fps by several sources. What do I see? It's very jerky. Very very jerky. Ignoring taring it's still jerky up to 50fps, but 70fps is pretty much smooth as silk.
Easiliy varifiable.
PAL TV looks shite.

(, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 1:58, archived)
# Never tested it?
I did TV and audio electronics engineering at Salford University and regardless of your 'test' it is clinical fact that the brain can not process more than 25 frames a second which is why 50hz is used in PAL anything less you see flicker and anything higher you perceive a still picture.
You might think PAL is bad and sure there are better but you can bet your arse that NTSC is not it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagon-wheel_effect
(, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 2:08, archived)
# Still picture?
How many games or TV shows involve still pictures? Try it with a moving image, in this little test it was a rotating radar dish if you must know. Honestly guv'. Try it. I'm not bullshitting you.
(, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 2:11, archived)
# what I mean by 'still picture'
is that you do not see the flicker of the frames being drawn above 25fps ( it's actually around 24 point something )
As for your test see the wiki link above as this has been industry standard knowledge since the movies started. Screen frame rates and film speeds are not chosen at random but because of this effect that we can't register the image any faster than 25fps.
(, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 2:15, archived)
# There's a difference
between being able to see a single individual frame at higher than 25fps and being unable to tell between 25 and higher frames a second. www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm
Even Wikipedia says so on the FPS article.
(, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 2:21, archived)
# ok I'm wrong and you are correct.
my education was a waste.
(, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 2:24, archived)
# No,
It wasn't, you didn't do a degree in eyes. Have a cookie.
(, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 2:25, archived)
# Your entire life is a fucking waste, you idiot.
(, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 2:38, archived)
# "TV and Audio Electronics" has fuck all to do with knowing anything about "clinical facts".
The wagon wheel effect is also irrelevant here.

Wow, you prove your ignorance of just about everything more and more each day.

(, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 2:46, archived)
# Well, we've all had some cunt try to show us a DVD
on his massive new telly.
And been so underwhelmed, and so pissed off for being asked round in the first place, that we've ended up shooting his fucking dog and all kinds of unpleasantness has erupted.

Yes?

Analogue, me. For as long as possible.
(, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 1:31, archived)
# Ha ha ha!
How can I argue with that?
(, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 1:42, archived)
# Don't argue.
Just shoot the fucking dog.
(, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 1:45, archived)
# I love my big TV and my modern gadgets
and I also love my remnants of a vinyl collection and my old SL 1210 players. There is room for all. What there is not room for is any more content on the analogue carrier waves even after utilising the sidebands for digital through he aerial content.
You want movie channels, sport channels and fishing channels? Gotta have direct digital feed. Nothing odd about that.
What they need to sort out is the content and not give me 200 channels of stuff that was not only on 20 years ago but has been on this channel all fucking month.
(, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 1:25, archived)
# You really are a miserable old bastard.
Aren't you.

AREN'T YOU! ;)
(, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 1:27, archived)
# I have 295 channe;s available to me right now and you know what I'm watching?
celebrity fucking deathmatch. It's shite.
(, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 1:32, archived)
# It's worse than that, mate.
He's an employer.
(, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 1:34, archived)
# Not any more.
All those lazy cunts are gone.
Until I need more.
(, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 1:35, archived)
# Read Doonesbury, Pasa.
Currently.
It'll make you laff.
(, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 1:39, archived)
# some what ironic.
huzzah!
(, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 1:28, archived)
# And they wonder why people download stuff
It's barely worth owning a TV, with the iPlayer and torrents and all of that.
(, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 1:35, archived)
# Here's lookin' at you !
(, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 1:13, archived)
# That's very nice!
What do you call it and what do you feed it? It looks as if it might respond to treats.
(, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 1:16, archived)
# It's called . . . retro fit . . . and it eats air waves !
(, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 1:18, archived)
# I should like one of these for my very own
(, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 1:29, archived)
# It would make a nice pet . . .
(, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 1:30, archived)
# *dons tinfoil hat*
(, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 1:15, archived)
# Does it look like a boat ?
(, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 1:21, archived)
# Only the best tinfoil hats do.
(, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 1:22, archived)
#
(, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 1:44, archived)
# Silver me timbers !
(, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 1:49, archived)
# The government have infiltrated our lower colons.
Join the fight and shit for truth!!
(, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 1:15, archived)
# *would shit for truth but finds colon blocked with tin foil*
it's not very nice.
(, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 1:18, archived)
# "There is a policeman inside all our heads, he must be destroyed."
That's got to be my favourite anarchist movement catchphrase ever.
(, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 1:21, archived)
# UNDER THE PAVING STONES, THE BEACH !
Woooo-hooooooo !

Who's with me?

*looks around*

Oh.

(, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 1:24, archived)
# It sounds plausible and real
I think I'll try this out on my less intelligent mates this week
(, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 1:17, archived)
# Please do.
It's a piece of piss. I made it up on the spot after a recent experience with a nitwit who sees a conspiracy everywhere (probably including his fucking cornflakes). I'm tired of this. Hasn't anyone ever heard of Occam's Razor? (I know I'm going to regret having written that.)
(, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 1:21, archived)
# So you employed Occams Razor.
Well done.

To what do you imply it?
(, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 1:25, archived)
# occams razor isn't great for shaving
as the simplest thing to do is just have a beard.
(, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 1:32, archived)
# Brilliant
I will quote you for the rest of my life (not kidding).
(, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 1:35, archived)
# Whilst ignoring everyone who is trying
to have a conversation with you?

Sounds like you've shown previous....
(, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 1:52, archived)
# Death to videodrome.
And god forbid we take something plaudible-sounding seriously.
(, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 1:21, archived)
# I am sorry.
But do you mean plausible?
(, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 1:29, archived)
# I suppose one could assume that
yes
(, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 1:34, archived)
# Can I just state,
that the situation you are implying already exists. It is known as copyright. I am a big fan of Saturday Night Live. The only way that I can watch it is by downloading it illegaly. What you seem to fight against seems to be what everyone wants as far as I can see.
(, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 1:22, archived)
# I believe he was being satirical
And perhaps you are being satirical too, in which case I'm being post-modernist
(, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 1:32, archived)
# Well do you know what?
I don't think he is. I think that he is a child who, through the powers he despises, is given a voice across many oceans. He should stick closer to home before he tries to save the world.
(, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 1:44, archived)
# I think you are an ironing board stategically placed underneath a glass vessel containing molten teeth
(, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 2:01, archived)
# CFSPC!
where do I sign up?
(, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 5:16, archived)