Not even the first non-Latin, as it is already for quite some time possible to register.hk (Hong Kong) using Chinese characters for the TLD. This allows one to have a fully Chinese domain name, as for longer time it was already possible to use Chinese characters for domain name, but with.hk as extension.
Far less if you only include native English speakers: US + Canada + Australia + UK = 317+26+23+63 = 429 million. Add some smaller countries like SA and NZ and reach maybe 500 mln, that's barely 7% of the world's population.
I expected more if you include speakers of English as a second language (like myself).
How often do you visit Chinese-language or Arabic-language web sites? They all have URLs that are using standard ASCII characters, what's stopping you.
I have a 42" HD TV now. Maximum size that fits comfortably in our living room. Until I have a bigger apartment (not likely - too expensive) not going to get any bigger a TV. A 4k TV should not be bigger than that, just doesn't fit in the living room. And besides, the current monster is plenty big enough.
Viewing distance is just under 3m. That's again pretty much a given considering the size of the room. Not going to sit closer, I like to be able to stretch my legs.
When this one breaks down (which hopefully takes a while as it's just about a year old), and 4K has come down to no more than current prices, and all regular channels are broadcasting at least HD (Discovery Channel's six channels are all SD, there is one Discovery HD available but not interested enough to start paying extra), maybe, just maybe, we'd move to 4k.
There is currently simply no compelling reason, just like the 3D option. Lack of content is a major issue of course.
Even less than SD is good enough for most people, considering the popularity of VHS video back in the day. DVD was a major improvement of course - including the advantage of not having to wind tapes back and forth - and was picked up quickly. BluRay had a much harder time.
That'd make the screen almost as wide, as the distance between you and the screen. Wow. Well within your normal field of view, but as you see by far best with the centre of your eyes that's going to be a lot of eye movement, possibly even head movement.
Beware of what you're asking, as before you know it you'll have to pay your current fee as "base connection fee" and any use on top of it. Switch on your TV for your daily dose of commercials, and the meter starts running.
Government should be responsible for infrastructure (cables - like roads, railways, power lines, water pipes, etc).
The industry should be responsible for using that infrastructure (pushing the bits to the cable - like running cars/trucks/buses on the roads, trains on the railways, the power to the power lines).
Now the problem is when such infrastructure is in the hands of the industry, in which case one needs government regulation forcing them to let others use that infrastructure at a fixed price (set by negotiations between government and company that owns the infrastructure allowing for a reasonable profit and fulfilling certain quality standards; same for any and all players that want to use it; and publicly available).
I really hope for you guys that Google would open up their fibre for other companies. Google provides the infrastructure, lets other players provide the Internet service. Sounds to me like this could very well fit in Google's overall strategy of making the Internet more available to anyone.
The argument of many here is that pretty much any use case laser is cheaper.
Very low volumes (1000 pages a month). Mix of colour and b/w. Take your pick.
At very low volumes the cost of the printer itself is going to be the main cost. Colour laser all-in-one at $300, colour inkjet all-in-one at $80: that $220 difference buys 5-7 sets of ink cartridges (recently got a complete set original cartridges for around USD 30 for mine). Even with cleaning heads once every three months, a cartridge can last for a year or two in the above scenario, making it take 10 years for a the laser to pay itself back. Neither will normally last this long, before being replaced by something newer. So takes a decade or more for laser to be cheaper per page!
Medium use: around 200 pages a year, mostly b/w, some photos. Cartridges again will easily last a year or two at this volume. Printing frequently enough to not dry out the heads, and a typical cartridge can do around 200 colour and 500-1000 b/w pages. Still not counting any toner for the laser.
High use: don't use a consumer grade printer, and cost calculations change for both laser and inkjet. My HK OfficeJet Pro of several years ago was really competitive with laser printer when it comes to cost, and it's fast and good quality. Cartridges lasted like forever, using the XL version. I once calculated my cost of printing at about USD 0,06 per page, doing 1,000-2,000 pages a year. And it only got cheaper the longer it lasted as purchase price of the printer could be spread out over more pages.
As the old saying goes: there are two kinds of people. Those who keep backups, and those who have never lost data. I think this blogger has now moved from the second to the first category.
Sorry, too lazy to search: only printer or also scanner built in?
My Epson XP-202 cost around USD 80, and it's an all-in-one with WiFi. The XP-102 lacks WiFi and was around USD 60. Ink cartridges are expensive of course... but so far never had to clean heads (printing 5-10 pages a week).
The price difference allows you to buy several sets of ink cartridges (especially if you can get your hand on generic ones), and then the "fortune in ink" isn't that much either. And with that you can do a lot of head cleaning if you must.
Laser printers are still much more expensive to buy than inkjets. Sure after 10,000 pages they're cheaper but most inkjets never make it that far - especially if you don't print for three months at a time, as you indicate your situation is. At such a rate you're likely to do maybe 500 pages over its lifetime, or even less. Laser still cheaper that way?
Lasers are also bulkier. And that's for me a major concern. When buying a printer last year, I looked first of all at size. I wanted a scanner as well, so all-in-one, that means size at least A4 for the scanner, but in the end it's not much bigger than that. Speed is far less of a concern, and quality is good enough for my use - if I really need better quality I'll go to a professional print shop.
I used to swear by HP but they've started this nasty habit of discontinuing ink cartridges after about three years, forcing you to buy a new printer because you can no longer get "original" cartridges for it.
I used to own an Officejet 75xx. Duplex printer, sheet feeder for scanner (unfortunately didn't work well), network port, fax. Except for the sheet feeder issue (but didn't really need that part), very happy. NO problems getting original (no copy) ink all the time, even after four years. Used it to print a couple thousand pages a year - overall cost maybe US$0.06-0.07 a page.
I recently got myself an Epson "small-in-one". Small printer/scanner/copier combo. Works fine, not very fast but cheap and not using it much. No ethernet port; WiFi instead. Much more convenient. Sure ethernet is faster but for those few prints we do...that just doesn't matter.
Laser may be cheaper in the long run - if you're calculating decades. I can buy like five of those inkjets for one laser. And my inkjet is doing colour even.
"It's not that those people ever had a chance to defend themselves" um, no they all ahve that chance, they just don't take it. Anyone on the list could go to the courts get a trial. They could turn themselves into local authorities, and so on. The target aren't random people.
If only those lists were public, and these people were actually summoned to court. They have NOT been convicted of a crime, and as such are not guilty of any.
With modern CG it shouldn't be too much asked to take the video of an actual beheading, and have the head of the person being beheaded replaced by someone you'd like to see beheaded. All the blood, gore, convulsions, and other effects are there already.
Bonus points for replacing the heads of the beheaders with another politician.
I think the hardest part of the above will be that to do this properly, you'd have to see those images for a very long time...
If we were forced to see the death, injury and destruction, I wonder if we would be so complacent about the bloody conflicts the world is currently mired in.
Which is indeed why TPTB don't let us see this part.
They target people believed to be members of Taliban, or otherwise people they believe they don't like for their ideas.
It's not that those people ever had a chance to defend themselves. They're killed before that.
The US is not at war with Pakistan or Afghanistan, so even that excuse doesn't fly. They just kill based on certain intelligence, without guarantees that this is correct (just think of Saddam's massive stockpile of WODs that still hasn't been found). And that's not even counting collateral damage, such as people getting caught in the line of fire, that just happen to be there while going their merry way.
These drone-killings are murder, plain and simple.
So, because some people don't like to see breastfeeding, it should be banned on Facebook.
Then if some people don't like to see beheadings, they also should be banned on Facebook.
I suspect there are more people that really don't like to see beheadings, than that there are people that really don't like to see breastfeeding. Yet one is allowed on Facebook, the other not.
I'm decades past being a kid, and I've no interest AT ALL in seeing someone being beheaded.
Some years ago I watched a movie that depicted killing - no blood, but they did it nevertheless in such a realistic way, from the victim's pov, that I really didn't like watching it and still don't really like that I ever watched it. The rest of the movie was quite OK though, and the killing part was an integral part of the whole story.
Why are we allowed to see people kill one another (and not just the pretend-version, Facebook allows the real thing with these beheadings), but not people enjoying one another?
Furthermore we may assume the guy sucking the girls nipple has her consent to do so, and is happy to do this, while the person being beheaded has not given consent to having his head chopped off.
Slashdot Mirror
Not even the first non-Latin, as it is already for quite some time possible to register .hk (Hong Kong) using Chinese characters for the TLD. This allows one to have a fully Chinese domain name, as for longer time it was already possible to use Chinese characters for domain name, but with .hk as extension.
Far less if you only include native English speakers: US + Canada + Australia + UK = 317+26+23+63 = 429 million. Add some smaller countries like SA and NZ and reach maybe 500 mln, that's barely 7% of the world's population.
I expected more if you include speakers of English as a second language (like myself).
How often do you visit Chinese-language or Arabic-language web sites? They all have URLs that are using standard ASCII characters, what's stopping you.
I have a 42" HD TV now. Maximum size that fits comfortably in our living room. Until I have a bigger apartment (not likely - too expensive) not going to get any bigger a TV. A 4k TV should not be bigger than that, just doesn't fit in the living room. And besides, the current monster is plenty big enough.
Viewing distance is just under 3m. That's again pretty much a given considering the size of the room. Not going to sit closer, I like to be able to stretch my legs.
When this one breaks down (which hopefully takes a while as it's just about a year old), and 4K has come down to no more than current prices, and all regular channels are broadcasting at least HD (Discovery Channel's six channels are all SD, there is one Discovery HD available but not interested enough to start paying extra), maybe, just maybe, we'd move to 4k.
There is currently simply no compelling reason, just like the 3D option. Lack of content is a major issue of course.
Why watch TV when you have guests? Nothing better to do?
For many people, SD was (and is) good enough.
Even less than SD is good enough for most people, considering the popularity of VHS video back in the day. DVD was a major improvement of course - including the advantage of not having to wind tapes back and forth - and was picked up quickly. BluRay had a much harder time.
That'd make the screen almost as wide, as the distance between you and the screen. Wow. Well within your normal field of view, but as you see by far best with the centre of your eyes that's going to be a lot of eye movement, possibly even head movement.
Beware of what you're asking, as before you know it you'll have to pay your current fee as "base connection fee" and any use on top of it. Switch on your TV for your daily dose of commercials, and the meter starts running.
Government should be responsible for infrastructure (cables - like roads, railways, power lines, water pipes, etc).
The industry should be responsible for using that infrastructure (pushing the bits to the cable - like running cars/trucks/buses on the roads, trains on the railways, the power to the power lines).
Now the problem is when such infrastructure is in the hands of the industry, in which case one needs government regulation forcing them to let others use that infrastructure at a fixed price (set by negotiations between government and company that owns the infrastructure allowing for a reasonable profit and fulfilling certain quality standards; same for any and all players that want to use it; and publicly available).
I really hope for you guys that Google would open up their fibre for other companies. Google provides the infrastructure, lets other players provide the Internet service. Sounds to me like this could very well fit in Google's overall strategy of making the Internet more available to anyone.
The argument of many here is that pretty much any use case laser is cheaper.
Very low volumes (1000 pages a month). Mix of colour and b/w. Take your pick.
At very low volumes the cost of the printer itself is going to be the main cost. Colour laser all-in-one at $300, colour inkjet all-in-one at $80: that $220 difference buys 5-7 sets of ink cartridges (recently got a complete set original cartridges for around USD 30 for mine). Even with cleaning heads once every three months, a cartridge can last for a year or two in the above scenario, making it take 10 years for a the laser to pay itself back. Neither will normally last this long, before being replaced by something newer. So takes a decade or more for laser to be cheaper per page!
Medium use: around 200 pages a year, mostly b/w, some photos. Cartridges again will easily last a year or two at this volume. Printing frequently enough to not dry out the heads, and a typical cartridge can do around 200 colour and 500-1000 b/w pages. Still not counting any toner for the laser.
High use: don't use a consumer grade printer, and cost calculations change for both laser and inkjet. My HK OfficeJet Pro of several years ago was really competitive with laser printer when it comes to cost, and it's fast and good quality. Cartridges lasted like forever, using the XL version. I once calculated my cost of printing at about USD 0,06 per page, doing 1,000-2,000 pages a year. And it only got cheaper the longer it lasted as purchase price of the printer could be spread out over more pages.
As the old saying goes: there are two kinds of people. Those who keep backups, and those who have never lost data. I think this blogger has now moved from the second to the first category.
Sorry, too lazy to search: only printer or also scanner built in?
My Epson XP-202 cost around USD 80, and it's an all-in-one with WiFi. The XP-102 lacks WiFi and was around USD 60. Ink cartridges are expensive of course... but so far never had to clean heads (printing 5-10 pages a week).
Show me the calculation, I'm not convinced.
The price difference allows you to buy several sets of ink cartridges (especially if you can get your hand on generic ones), and then the "fortune in ink" isn't that much either. And with that you can do a lot of head cleaning if you must.
Laser printers are still much more expensive to buy than inkjets. Sure after 10,000 pages they're cheaper but most inkjets never make it that far - especially if you don't print for three months at a time, as you indicate your situation is. At such a rate you're likely to do maybe 500 pages over its lifetime, or even less. Laser still cheaper that way?
Lasers are also bulkier. And that's for me a major concern. When buying a printer last year, I looked first of all at size. I wanted a scanner as well, so all-in-one, that means size at least A4 for the scanner, but in the end it's not much bigger than that. Speed is far less of a concern, and quality is good enough for my use - if I really need better quality I'll go to a professional print shop.
I used to swear by HP but they've started this nasty habit of discontinuing ink cartridges after about three years, forcing you to buy a new printer because you can no longer get "original" cartridges for it.
I used to own an Officejet 75xx. Duplex printer, sheet feeder for scanner (unfortunately didn't work well), network port, fax. Except for the sheet feeder issue (but didn't really need that part), very happy. NO problems getting original (no copy) ink all the time, even after four years. Used it to print a couple thousand pages a year - overall cost maybe US$0.06-0.07 a page.
I recently got myself an Epson "small-in-one". Small printer/scanner/copier combo. Works fine, not very fast but cheap and not using it much. No ethernet port; WiFi instead. Much more convenient. Sure ethernet is faster but for those few prints we do...that just doesn't matter.
Laser may be cheaper in the long run - if you're calculating decades. I can buy like five of those inkjets for one laser. And my inkjet is doing colour even.
"It's not that those people ever had a chance to defend themselves"
um, no they all ahve that chance, they just don't take it. Anyone on the list could go to the courts get a trial.
They could turn themselves into local authorities, and so on.
The target aren't random people.
If only those lists were public, and these people were actually summoned to court. They have NOT been convicted of a crime, and as such are not guilty of any.
With modern CG it shouldn't be too much asked to take the video of an actual beheading, and have the head of the person being beheaded replaced by someone you'd like to see beheaded. All the blood, gore, convulsions, and other effects are there already.
Bonus points for replacing the heads of the beheaders with another politician.
I think the hardest part of the above will be that to do this properly, you'd have to see those images for a very long time...
1984 was set in (what used to be) the UK. Apparently Orwell was quite the clairvoyant. He just missed the actual year by a few decades.
If we were forced to see the death, injury and destruction, I wonder if we would be so complacent about the bloody conflicts the world is currently mired in.
Which is indeed why TPTB don't let us see this part.
Oh, and it's bad for ratings to boot.
I think the average beheading is pretty much against the law.
They target people believed to be members of Taliban, or otherwise people they believe they don't like for their ideas.
It's not that those people ever had a chance to defend themselves. They're killed before that.
The US is not at war with Pakistan or Afghanistan, so even that excuse doesn't fly. They just kill based on certain intelligence, without guarantees that this is correct (just think of Saddam's massive stockpile of WODs that still hasn't been found). And that's not even counting collateral damage, such as people getting caught in the line of fire, that just happen to be there while going their merry way.
These drone-killings are murder, plain and simple.
So, because some people don't like to see breastfeeding, it should be banned on Facebook.
Then if some people don't like to see beheadings, they also should be banned on Facebook.
I suspect there are more people that really don't like to see beheadings, than that there are people that really don't like to see breastfeeding. Yet one is allowed on Facebook, the other not.
Ridiculous.
I'm decades past being a kid, and I've no interest AT ALL in seeing someone being beheaded.
Some years ago I watched a movie that depicted killing - no blood, but they did it nevertheless in such a realistic way, from the victim's pov, that I really didn't like watching it and still don't really like that I ever watched it. The rest of the movie was quite OK though, and the killing part was an integral part of the whole story.
Why are we allowed to see people kill one another (and not just the pretend-version, Facebook allows the real thing with these beheadings), but not people enjoying one another?
Furthermore we may assume the guy sucking the girls nipple has her consent to do so, and is happy to do this, while the person being beheaded has not given consent to having his head chopped off.