|
|
Posted by Martin Heffels on 10/05/18 11:53
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 07:44:22 GMT, "PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com>
wrote:
>Why do I have to explain everything twice?
Sounds familiar ;-)
>>>-- the USPTO doesn't vet patent specifications for accuracy.
>>
>> Of course not, their peers or the consumers will do that.
>
>Really? How many consumers read patents? More importantly, how many
>consumers understand what they read?
I am not talking about reading the patents. It's when the products get
sold, and the marketing-people boast about what is invented, that the
consumers and peers will judge upon the claims.
>>
>>>Moreover, the question isn't "bit error rate," but "uncorrectable error
>>>rate
>>>as applied to dv tape."
>>
>> No, the original question was about bit-perfect copy. Uncorrectable errors
>> were later introduced into the thread.
>
>Nope. Up to your usual tricks I see -- can't win the argument, so change
>the premise.
>
>The discussion was in the context of whether D-25 resulted in generational
>loss, making it less preferrable than SuperBeta for duping.
Well, excuse me. Sometimes you refer to the original question, sometimes to
your own. It's hard to follow. Maybe to help me understand you better, let
me know if you mean a "my question" or a "OP question". I am not blonde,
but sometimes have the feeling my brown hair is just artificial
intelligence....
Even the OP has the understanding that generation loss in digital form
equals an alteration of the original data (see his second question). You
are the one who came up with uncorrecteabl errors, not the OP.
>Right -- it's the dirty secret that only you know about. In fact, the
>conspiracy is so vast that outfits like Adobe are willing to risk FTA
>sanctions, not mention class action law suits, by lying about it.
Adobe's claims are based on the practical outcome, not on a statiscal one.
>All you have to do is quantify the amount of uncorrectable error. Do that
>(and from a credible source, not your imagination) and we have something to
>discuss. Otherwise, I read into the start of all of your posts, "Well, _I_
>believe . . ." Sorry, not interested.
I know, and that is why I keep looking for some more data, which helps
prove the point to you. There are plenty of people on this planet who would
agree with me, but you don't have to, if all you believe in is numbers, and
not other's experience. You know that it will take some time to find some
answers, if I can find them at all. And if I can't we will both have to
believe our own views, no hard feelings :-)
cheers
-martin-
--
"If he can he'll smile 'cos he's a Royal Crocodile."
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|