While those are legitimate attack vectors, they do not seem to be what this facility will perform. If it's purely a passive listener of all internet & phone communication, looking for "patterns" and "threats" from the entire haystack, then using stronger encryption would seem to be sensible.
I can't think of a single consumer-available component that a PC shares with a cellphone, except maybe flash memory cards.
When it comes to servers vs home PCs, they really only share hard drives, and even then it's only sometimes. Power supplies, cases, motherboards, CPU families, ECC memory, etc, are generally a different lineup for servers and cost quite a bit more.
But the upside of everybody having a PC is that PC components get very, very inexpensive because of volume. If it the hardware goes more niche, the prices go up.
I wonder what sort of framerate we'd need for this sort of detail shifting. It would be very distracting to have the display's rendered point of focus lag where you're looking at, and I think that lag would be noticeable even at 60fps. We do know that the eye jitters a fair amount subconsciously to better perceive more of its surroundings, when things are going on.
You probably couldn't tell much of a difference for a frame of a movie or 3d game, but given a choice between a 4000x2000 desktop display and a 8000x4000, I'd definitely go for the latter!
Just giving other examples of people who desire a product like this.
It astounds me that people respond to a wishlist with "You don't want that! That's wrong! You cannot use that! I don't want it, so it's insanity for you to request it!" etc. Why is it so strangely offensive to you that I want lots of small pixels without scaling, and are shocked & in denial that there are others out there with the same wish to be able to purchase commercial products like that? There's plenty of people on every display-related article on/. cheering for this sort of thing, while others (like we see here) for some reason wish to eliminate the option. Bizarre.
So, just because you can read text at 1-pixel width fonts does not mean you can actually see the individual pixels.
I agree. But I can discern, count, visually see the absolute/relative position & alignment of, etc, individual pixels on such a display, and I'm by far not the only one.
The point I made with the fonts is that even at "retina" resolutions, standard font pixel sizes used by desktop OSes are still legible to normal-visioned people. Try viewing a desktop screenshot at 1:1 on a retina display; everything should still be well within legible sizes, if smaller.
The problem is that this then puts the onus on the application developers to design usable UIs for a variety of resolutions *or* designing their UI to be more widely resizable/scalable.
No it doesn't, not in this use case. I put it on a high-DPI monitor, the visual bits are physically small. I put it on a low-DPI monitor, the visual bits are physically big. The OS is unaware, and I'm happy with the >200dpi monitors I do have, and the effect it has on the visuals. They are 1/4th the area with the OS oblivious to that fact, and I like that. Others do to, and desire to be able to purchase something like this as an option in the commercial market.
There's a whole group out there who have retrofitted 15" 2048x1536 panels into their Thinkpads, for example. They usually don't run any special scaling settings, but just let the OS render things as-is to a fraction of the "common" size, with whole lists of people wishing they could do the same to their hardware.
Re:End users who don't know how to set DPI
on
Apple Unveils New iPad
·
· Score: 3, Informative
"it just really doesn't work well with most people, and the software (which is *absolutely* and *inextricably* part of the technology needed for this to work) is not up to the task".
Says who? Why do you think this is the case? And no, the software has absolutely nothing to do with it. I'm looking right now at my 22" >200dpi displays running 4pt fonts (not OS scaled) in my code editors, having salvaged IBM's monitors that used to be made for medical imaging, and yes the pixels are discernable. 99% of the onscreen text is still made with 1-pixel wide strokes and is clearly legible (at normal ~10 pt non-OS-scaled sizes) to regular people over my shoulder as I show them things. Comparable pixels are also discernable on the N800 I used to use, which is also in a similar DPI range iirc.
Lots of high-end technical users want to do the same and run things as small & sharp as are perceptible to them WITHOUT any scaling. All's that's needed are high-DPI monitors, no OS changes at all. Works fine in Windows, Linux, and whatever else you want. Again, this is a prosumer market desire, not something to foist onto the average person.
Those are dimensions, not resolutions. I'm being specific in my terminology.
To be fair, "2048x1536" etc have all been referred to as "resolution" in monitor-speak for as long as I can recall.
With iOS, you can have small, sharp things, that are supposed to be small and sharp, and things that you wouldn't want to shrink to 1/4 the size (like buttons and text) don't.
No, that's not what I want. I want to take the as-is visual computing experience and put the entire thing on smaller pixels. Smaller text, smaller icons, smaller buttons, smaller everything; so that I can have more information in the same physical space. I do not want the OS "compensating" for small pixels by rendering bigger graphics to match some arbitrary physical size. Therefore, current OS support is great, but nobody's been delivering on high-DPI high-pixel-count monitors until now.
Senior citizens with failing eyesight would find such small text unreadable.
I do not have failing eyesight. I am a power user, and I want a good high-DPI power-user monitor to view lots of things in a small space. The technology clearly exists, and this sentiment is growing among other power-users, yet the market offers nothing for this prosumer segment. This "Oh no, not everybody can handle it, can't release it without mitigation" mindset seems to be the only thing keeping back the technology. Hopefully with this display in the hands of many, things will change.
Re:Nice upgrade, but no big surprises in the new i
on
Apple Unveils New iPad
·
· Score: 1
Why would somebody with a smartphone *not* carry it with them? And if they're not carrying it, what's the odds that they'd carry a tablet in that same situation?
Laptops used to have a 16:10 aspect ratio before they decided to go fully short-screen. Plus, in the 16:10 versions, the keyboard was mostly centered on the device. Now with the numkeypads tacked on, getting onto the home keys is very unnatural, even for new computer users.
All the major OSes today support that res and higher. Ubuntu even supported my >200dpi 3840x2400 monitors via goofy single-link DVI connections right out of the box (though something won't let the total desktop get wider than 8192). Windows 98 had no problem driving 2048x1536 on my old 21" CRTs.
If you mean the OS should scale things, many people itching for more pixels want the individual pixels used for more information onscreen, not to conglomerate them into the same low information density. I *want* things to be clear at 1/4th the size onscreen!
This thing is a $500 compact 2048x1536 LCD monitor for all I'm concerned, and to me that's a very welcome product. I don't give a rat's whisker about Apple's ecosystem otherwise.
(Now, to wait for sanely available purchases and software support to allow that use...)
However, to be fair to your stated point, the iPad line really is the first time that Apple has made an inexpensive product relative to the market. Pre-iPad, tablet PCs were slabs that were more expensive than laptops, typically starting in the $1500-2000 range. The iPad came out far cheaper than any competitor could have hoped to (due to price lock-ins from suppliers as prices were increasing), and pulled off a good form factor. Things have normalized more nowadays, but Apple actually had an undercutting product.
By what means do pejoratives become silly anachronisms? Certainly not by enshrining them as society-wide PC ban-words. Bash a word out of common use and it'll just be replaced by something else that those who hold disdain will begin to use anew. The problem is the disdain, not the label, and anybody who rails against the label thinking its absence will solve anything is spouting balderdash.
Of course it hurts. This isn't saying it doesn't hurt. It's saying that for people without your hair genes, it hurts even more, especially when spiciness is involved.
The value of gold is not in the gold itself, it's in the fact that everyone on the planet is taught from an early age that it has value.
Not quite. Gold is visibly unique, difficult to fake due to its density, very portable/workable, and very durable. It does make for a good lasting token, and has enough scarcity & shininess to do the necessary primal things in people's brains to desire it.
Slashdot Mirror
While those are legitimate attack vectors, they do not seem to be what this facility will perform. If it's purely a passive listener of all internet & phone communication, looking for "patterns" and "threats" from the entire haystack, then using stronger encryption would seem to be sensible.
We used to spend many hours a day starting at "unlicensed" particle accelerators on our desks and in our living rooms.
"I Am An Accelerated Particle"? Cool!
I think you meant "at least 50-60 years", seeing as Lisp has done it since the 50s.
The India customer device huge already employs thousands tech support.
The oldest version I've played was on the HP48 calculators, and I think even that was a port off of some older platform.
I can't think of a single consumer-available component that a PC shares with a cellphone, except maybe flash memory cards.
When it comes to servers vs home PCs, they really only share hard drives, and even then it's only sometimes. Power supplies, cases, motherboards, CPU families, ECC memory, etc, are generally a different lineup for servers and cost quite a bit more.
But the upside of everybody having a PC is that PC components get very, very inexpensive because of volume. If it the hardware goes more niche, the prices go up.
I wonder what sort of framerate we'd need for this sort of detail shifting. It would be very distracting to have the display's rendered point of focus lag where you're looking at, and I think that lag would be noticeable even at 60fps. We do know that the eye jitters a fair amount subconsciously to better perceive more of its surroundings, when things are going on.
You probably couldn't tell much of a difference for a frame of a movie or 3d game, but given a choice between a 4000x2000 desktop display and a 8000x4000, I'd definitely go for the latter!
Just giving other examples of people who desire a product like this.
It astounds me that people respond to a wishlist with "You don't want that! That's wrong! You cannot use that! I don't want it, so it's insanity for you to request it!" etc. Why is it so strangely offensive to you that I want lots of small pixels without scaling, and are shocked & in denial that there are others out there with the same wish to be able to purchase commercial products like that? There's plenty of people on every display-related article on /. cheering for this sort of thing, while others (like we see here) for some reason wish to eliminate the option. Bizarre.
So, just because you can read text at 1-pixel width fonts does not mean you can actually see the individual pixels.
I agree. But I can discern, count, visually see the absolute/relative position & alignment of, etc, individual pixels on such a display, and I'm by far not the only one.
The point I made with the fonts is that even at "retina" resolutions, standard font pixel sizes used by desktop OSes are still legible to normal-visioned people. Try viewing a desktop screenshot at 1:1 on a retina display; everything should still be well within legible sizes, if smaller.
The problem is that this then puts the onus on the application developers to design usable UIs for a variety of resolutions *or* designing their UI to be more widely resizable/scalable.
No it doesn't, not in this use case. I put it on a high-DPI monitor, the visual bits are physically small. I put it on a low-DPI monitor, the visual bits are physically big. The OS is unaware, and I'm happy with the >200dpi monitors I do have, and the effect it has on the visuals. They are 1/4th the area with the OS oblivious to that fact, and I like that. Others do to, and desire to be able to purchase something like this as an option in the commercial market.
There's a whole group out there who have retrofitted 15" 2048x1536 panels into their Thinkpads, for example. They usually don't run any special scaling settings, but just let the OS render things as-is to a fraction of the "common" size, with whole lists of people wishing they could do the same to their hardware.
"it just really doesn't work well with most people, and the software (which is *absolutely* and *inextricably* part of the technology needed for this to work) is not up to the task".
Says who? Why do you think this is the case? And no, the software has absolutely nothing to do with it. I'm looking right now at my 22" >200dpi displays running 4pt fonts (not OS scaled) in my code editors, having salvaged IBM's monitors that used to be made for medical imaging, and yes the pixels are discernable. 99% of the onscreen text is still made with 1-pixel wide strokes and is clearly legible (at normal ~10 pt non-OS-scaled sizes) to regular people over my shoulder as I show them things. Comparable pixels are also discernable on the N800 I used to use, which is also in a similar DPI range iirc.
Lots of high-end technical users want to do the same and run things as small & sharp as are perceptible to them WITHOUT any scaling. All's that's needed are high-DPI monitors, no OS changes at all. Works fine in Windows, Linux, and whatever else you want. Again, this is a prosumer market desire, not something to foist onto the average person.
Those are dimensions, not resolutions. I'm being specific in my terminology.
To be fair, "2048x1536" etc have all been referred to as "resolution" in monitor-speak for as long as I can recall.
With iOS, you can have small, sharp things, that are supposed to be small and sharp, and things that you wouldn't want to shrink to 1/4 the size (like buttons and text) don't.
No, that's not what I want. I want to take the as-is visual computing experience and put the entire thing on smaller pixels. Smaller text, smaller icons, smaller buttons, smaller everything; so that I can have more information in the same physical space. I do not want the OS "compensating" for small pixels by rendering bigger graphics to match some arbitrary physical size. Therefore, current OS support is great, but nobody's been delivering on high-DPI high-pixel-count monitors until now.
Senior citizens with failing eyesight would find such small text unreadable.
I do not have failing eyesight. I am a power user, and I want a good high-DPI power-user monitor to view lots of things in a small space. The technology clearly exists, and this sentiment is growing among other power-users, yet the market offers nothing for this prosumer segment. This "Oh no, not everybody can handle it, can't release it without mitigation" mindset seems to be the only thing keeping back the technology. Hopefully with this display in the hands of many, things will change.
Why would somebody with a smartphone *not* carry it with them? And if they're not carrying it, what's the odds that they'd carry a tablet in that same situation?
Laptops used to have a 16:10 aspect ratio before they decided to go fully short-screen. Plus, in the 16:10 versions, the keyboard was mostly centered on the device. Now with the numkeypads tacked on, getting onto the home keys is very unnatural, even for new computer users.
There is no such thing as too many pixels.
All the major OSes today support that res and higher. Ubuntu even supported my >200dpi 3840x2400 monitors via goofy single-link DVI connections right out of the box (though something won't let the total desktop get wider than 8192). Windows 98 had no problem driving 2048x1536 on my old 21" CRTs.
If you mean the OS should scale things, many people itching for more pixels want the individual pixels used for more information onscreen, not to conglomerate them into the same low information density. I *want* things to be clear at 1/4th the size onscreen!
This thing is a $500 compact 2048x1536 LCD monitor for all I'm concerned, and to me that's a very welcome product. I don't give a rat's whisker about Apple's ecosystem otherwise.
(Now, to wait for sanely available purchases and software support to allow that use...)
However, to be fair to your stated point, the iPad line really is the first time that Apple has made an inexpensive product relative to the market. Pre-iPad, tablet PCs were slabs that were more expensive than laptops, typically starting in the $1500-2000 range. The iPad came out far cheaper than any competitor could have hoped to (due to price lock-ins from suppliers as prices were increasing), and pulled off a good form factor. Things have normalized more nowadays, but Apple actually had an undercutting product.
The same resolution as my old CRTs, which I absolutely, wholeheartedly welcome back.
I think everybody else should grow up already.
By what means do pejoratives become silly anachronisms? Certainly not by enshrining them as society-wide PC ban-words. Bash a word out of common use and it'll just be replaced by something else that those who hold disdain will begin to use anew. The problem is the disdain, not the label, and anybody who rails against the label thinking its absence will solve anything is spouting balderdash.
Of course it hurts. This isn't saying it doesn't hurt. It's saying that for people without your hair genes, it hurts even more, especially when spiciness is involved.
The value of gold is not in the gold itself, it's in the fact that everyone on the planet is taught from an early age that it has value.
Not quite. Gold is visibly unique, difficult to fake due to its density, very portable/workable, and very durable. It does make for a good lasting token, and has enough scarcity & shininess to do the necessary primal things in people's brains to desire it.