Nobody's saying it *leaks* memory. It just uses tons of it, especially on javascript- and video-heavy sites, and hangs inexplicably for seconds at a time. Loading up some giant images or only running 15 tabs isn't going to do much of anything in any browser.
What patents _aren't_ awarded? The USPTO is swamped, and politicians view quantity of patents approved as a measure of scientific progress in the country.
For the manufacturers, it means that people can port more OSes to their hardware than their own provided code supports which could drive more sales as commodity hardware is repurposed, and a feedback loop of improvements and patches without giant internal maintenance teams.
Plus, keeping support for legacy hardware alive through the community brings loyalty & a good image to the company, which I think is one of the best intangibles, as it's these types of people who everybody else asks for purchasing opinions.
(And I'm saying these things while not being anything near a free software nut. It just makes sense.)
No, the goal is autonomous systems that can react appropriately to their environment according to their function and task. It has nothing to do with mimicking how a human brain works, although there are sub-fields of AI that do try to work on that.
I can already copy the fashions, architecture, storytelling style, business models, cooking recipes, general look and feel, and many other things that have taken years of real hard R&D by some small (or large) inventor and copy it and hence give no monetary reward for the inventor's hard work, all completely without legal repercussion.
Why are algorithms and physical/chemical recipes and other such things different?
Also, adobe. I know in certain places in Mexico, many of the older adobe homes don't even bother with AC, while the newer ones can't keep up with the heat.
So what, you shoot and stab less people? Less options available for killing people, or have noncombative victories not available in the non-low violence version? Engage in fewer combat scenarios and more in strategic command?
Because if all they did was tone down the blood'n'guts, they're low gore with the exact same amount of violence.
What I did buy are 16:10 monitors that have enough vertical resolution not to be constraining (2400p). Because once you get out of the mass market price range, might as well just spend a bit more and get the best res you can find. Those 1600x1200 monitors on newegg aren't much cheaper than a good used IBM T221.
What sucks is that the mass market offerings used to go pretty high-res (2048x1536) without getting very expensive, in a pretty smooth feature/price curve. Nowadays, there is no spectrum in the mass market. You get cheap 1080p, fine. But want any more? Pay twice the price just to go to 1920x1200, and $1k+ to go anywhere beyond that.
I have. I hate seeing my interactive options through a narrow vertical slit, too.
Re:Joe Sixpack isn't even using his 1080p right
on
Beyond HDTV
·
· Score: 1
Wow, just wow. You didn't think to post as AC?
I'm running 22 megapixels on my workstation across 3 displays, and also have a C= 1701 and 1084s at home, which I too use for SD gaming consoles, along with my Amiga and C64/128 stuff. And a high-end Nokia CRT. I've burned through a couple of 2048x1536 CRTs back before the LCD days, and they were all great display quality at about $350 each, not $500, though prices did go as high as you wanted. And depth on a desk is pretty cheap real estate for loading up with CRTs; I certainly don't do much with paper or whatever else on a desk.
Having many monitors sucks compared to having just a few with good pixel count; multiple smaller displays eat up available physical space way too quickly, it's hard to grow in both dimensions of size, and effective multi-monitor stands get very expensive very quickly. Plus, the short-screen gimped vertical resolution becomes narrow-screen gimped horizontal resolution when you rotate them.
I remember & currently own what things were like, know the specific pros & cons of today's display tech, and regardless of any of your ridiculous whatever-you-call-that-post, pixel count still trumps all other monitor features. Total pixel count per single display, that is, with per-dimension pixel count a related second place.
Huh? More pixels is always better. I'm not complaining about wide-screen, I'm complaining about short-screen: They shrink vertically in order to achieve the 16:9 aspect ratio instead of keeping the same vertical res and expanding horizontally.
The 1920 part is okay, the 1080 part isn't. And it's far worse on (affordable) laptops.
Re:3D - and Resolution Maxed-Out?
on
Beyond HDTV
·
· Score: 1
Technically, a single stereoscopic 3d frame contains 2 images. So one of those images is just a field, not a complete frame. The term "field" carries over from interlaced terminology, where it was one pass over the screen that only covered every other line, or half the frame. 2 fields would be flickered together to complete a single frame, so displays flickering between the left/right fields intended for shutter glasses are especially suited for the term "field".
On a 60Hz display showing 3d with shutter glasses, you'd get 30 *frames* per second made up of stereoscopic fields flashing by every 1/60th of a second.
Didn't France ban encryption at least on some strengths years ago? I'm not too familiar with what happened after that, and a quick Googling is just bringing up old hits from when the ban was enacted. Anybody care to fill in the reality of what happens in such a case?
Re:Joe Sixpack isn't even using his 1080p right
on
Beyond HDTV
·
· Score: 1
What do I use it for? To be able to have lots of things open and just glance over instead of alt-tabbing through a bunch of windows, or scrolling around content with a tiny viewport hoping to find things.
I have a bunch of source code, logs, documentation, and terminals open for working with large projects. I'm on Skype with multiple technical chats with coworkers, having the contextual backlogs continually visible. Having to constantly swap around your visual context is incredibly jarring and counterproductive, but you really don't appreciate that fact until you're able to work with good multimonitor setups that allow you to see exactly how bad enduring a single low-res monitor is. I'd also been on 21" CRTs for a very long time before the LCD low-res nonsense came about, again a point of notice for how constraining things had become.
Sorry, but if you can't see individual pixels clearly on a standard 22"+ 1080p LCD, you really do have subpar vision. Still fine to drive, but much less clarity than the average person gets in normal desktop viewing distances. It is pretty uncommon to have to lower the resolution for normal working conditions. If you're on a <=17" laptop with a 1920x1080 display, then it would be understandable, as you'd need properly good vision to use those.
Re:Oh please no
on
Beyond HDTV
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Vertical resolution has been actively shrinking as wider screens have been produced. Basic laptop models have gone from 1280x800 (16:10) to 1366x768 (16:9). So they're not just getting wider, they're also getting shorter. Many browser games can't even fit in a 768p laptop display. On the desktop, 1920x1200 has been completely replaced by 1920x1080. You can't find 1200 displays anywhere in retail stores, and online you'll pay twice as much for a 1200 display vs a 1080 display.
1200 is the minimum vertical working resolution as far as I'm concerned. I agree you can fit information well in a 960x1200 half of such a display, but at 1080 you are in the range of losing the ability to fit decent information without vertical scrolling, or zooming out uncomfortably far.
If 25:9 goes anywhere in the next few years, and goes any higher vertical res than 1080, I'll eat my socks. Chances are, they'd shrink it vertically to fit, like 2500x900 pixels.
Re:How Good is "Good Enough?"
on
Beyond HDTV
·
· Score: 1
Remember, 16:10 is verboten, it's all 16:9 nowadays. There are some 3840x2160 displays in production, but they're all large format 40"+ and run over 50k USD.
I've got 2 of those IBMs in front of me right now, and yes the pixels are still very visible. Most of the text on my screen is drawn with 1 pixel wide strokes, the same as on any chunky-pixel display, and it's still just as clear & fully readable.
Oh please no
on
Beyond HDTV
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Computer monitors have been following television resolutions & aspect ratios. We need height back in our displays for all the portrait document-oriented stuff that we spend the majority of our times with on computers (emails, webpages, word processing, heck even board-based casual games). I'm sick of seeing my interactive options through a narrow slit.
Re:Joe Sixpack isn't even using his 1080p right
on
Beyond HDTV
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The whole 1080p thing has obliterated decent computer monitor resolutions. I don't give a rat's buttock about TVs and BluRays and home theater setups and all that crap, but the faster the mainstream media tech goes beyond 1080p, the faster I can have cheap high resolution computer monitors again.
1080 is low resolution garbage when it comes to desktop displays.
We don't ever convert from heat energy to electricity in standard power production. It's always heat to mechanical energy to electrical energy.
Thermocouples do directly convert heat to electricity, but they're typically not for power generation (except in specialty scenarios like satellites), they're mostly for sensors.
Slashdot Mirror
Traveling to tourist destinations makes you vulnerable to theft, too.
Nobody's saying it *leaks* memory. It just uses tons of it, especially on javascript- and video-heavy sites, and hangs inexplicably for seconds at a time. Loading up some giant images or only running 15 tabs isn't going to do much of anything in any browser.
How long will it be before they just gas a place with knock-out gas in order to "keep the peace"?
Apple is an electronics fashion company. Its "mind mining" is just figuring out how to stay the most fashionable to its market.
What patents _aren't_ awarded? The USPTO is swamped, and politicians view quantity of patents approved as a measure of scientific progress in the country.
For the manufacturers, it means that people can port more OSes to their hardware than their own provided code supports which could drive more sales as commodity hardware is repurposed, and a feedback loop of improvements and patches without giant internal maintenance teams.
Plus, keeping support for legacy hardware alive through the community brings loyalty & a good image to the company, which I think is one of the best intangibles, as it's these types of people who everybody else asks for purchasing opinions.
(And I'm saying these things while not being anything near a free software nut. It just makes sense.)
No, the goal is autonomous systems that can react appropriately to their environment according to their function and task. It has nothing to do with mimicking how a human brain works, although there are sub-fields of AI that do try to work on that.
I can already copy the fashions, architecture, storytelling style, business models, cooking recipes, general look and feel, and many other things that have taken years of real hard R&D by some small (or large) inventor and copy it and hence give no monetary reward for the inventor's hard work, all completely without legal repercussion.
Why are algorithms and physical/chemical recipes and other such things different?
Also, adobe. I know in certain places in Mexico, many of the older adobe homes don't even bother with AC, while the newer ones can't keep up with the heat.
So what, you shoot and stab less people? Less options available for killing people, or have noncombative victories not available in the non-low violence version? Engage in fewer combat scenarios and more in strategic command?
Because if all they did was tone down the blood'n'guts, they're low gore with the exact same amount of violence.
I'm colored white! Oh no!
Water is wet, the sky is blue, and I didn't RTFA.
Warden: "Correct! Your exponent is all 1s! Plus I can infer your non-zero fraction has a clear high bit, because you're signaling the fact!"
What I did buy are 16:10 monitors that have enough vertical resolution not to be constraining (2400p). Because once you get out of the mass market price range, might as well just spend a bit more and get the best res you can find. Those 1600x1200 monitors on newegg aren't much cheaper than a good used IBM T221.
What sucks is that the mass market offerings used to go pretty high-res (2048x1536) without getting very expensive, in a pretty smooth feature/price curve. Nowadays, there is no spectrum in the mass market. You get cheap 1080p, fine. But want any more? Pay twice the price just to go to 1920x1200, and $1k+ to go anywhere beyond that.
I have. I hate seeing my interactive options through a narrow vertical slit, too.
Wow, just wow. You didn't think to post as AC?
I'm running 22 megapixels on my workstation across 3 displays, and also have a C= 1701 and 1084s at home, which I too use for SD gaming consoles, along with my Amiga and C64/128 stuff. And a high-end Nokia CRT. I've burned through a couple of 2048x1536 CRTs back before the LCD days, and they were all great display quality at about $350 each, not $500, though prices did go as high as you wanted. And depth on a desk is pretty cheap real estate for loading up with CRTs; I certainly don't do much with paper or whatever else on a desk.
Having many monitors sucks compared to having just a few with good pixel count; multiple smaller displays eat up available physical space way too quickly, it's hard to grow in both dimensions of size, and effective multi-monitor stands get very expensive very quickly. Plus, the short-screen gimped vertical resolution becomes narrow-screen gimped horizontal resolution when you rotate them.
I remember & currently own what things were like, know the specific pros & cons of today's display tech, and regardless of any of your ridiculous whatever-you-call-that-post, pixel count still trumps all other monitor features. Total pixel count per single display, that is, with per-dimension pixel count a related second place.
Huh? More pixels is always better. I'm not complaining about wide-screen, I'm complaining about short-screen: They shrink vertically in order to achieve the 16:9 aspect ratio instead of keeping the same vertical res and expanding horizontally.
The 1920 part is okay, the 1080 part isn't. And it's far worse on (affordable) laptops.
Technically, a single stereoscopic 3d frame contains 2 images. So one of those images is just a field, not a complete frame. The term "field" carries over from interlaced terminology, where it was one pass over the screen that only covered every other line, or half the frame. 2 fields would be flickered together to complete a single frame, so displays flickering between the left/right fields intended for shutter glasses are especially suited for the term "field".
On a 60Hz display showing 3d with shutter glasses, you'd get 30 *frames* per second made up of stereoscopic fields flashing by every 1/60th of a second.
Didn't France ban encryption at least on some strengths years ago? I'm not too familiar with what happened after that, and a quick Googling is just bringing up old hits from when the ban was enacted. Anybody care to fill in the reality of what happens in such a case?
What do I use it for? To be able to have lots of things open and just glance over instead of alt-tabbing through a bunch of windows, or scrolling around content with a tiny viewport hoping to find things.
I have a bunch of source code, logs, documentation, and terminals open for working with large projects. I'm on Skype with multiple technical chats with coworkers, having the contextual backlogs continually visible. Having to constantly swap around your visual context is incredibly jarring and counterproductive, but you really don't appreciate that fact until you're able to work with good multimonitor setups that allow you to see exactly how bad enduring a single low-res monitor is. I'd also been on 21" CRTs for a very long time before the LCD low-res nonsense came about, again a point of notice for how constraining things had become.
Sorry, but if you can't see individual pixels clearly on a standard 22"+ 1080p LCD, you really do have subpar vision. Still fine to drive, but much less clarity than the average person gets in normal desktop viewing distances. It is pretty uncommon to have to lower the resolution for normal working conditions. If you're on a <=17" laptop with a 1920x1080 display, then it would be understandable, as you'd need properly good vision to use those.
Vertical resolution has been actively shrinking as wider screens have been produced. Basic laptop models have gone from 1280x800 (16:10) to 1366x768 (16:9). So they're not just getting wider, they're also getting shorter. Many browser games can't even fit in a 768p laptop display. On the desktop, 1920x1200 has been completely replaced by 1920x1080. You can't find 1200 displays anywhere in retail stores, and online you'll pay twice as much for a 1200 display vs a 1080 display.
1200 is the minimum vertical working resolution as far as I'm concerned. I agree you can fit information well in a 960x1200 half of such a display, but at 1080 you are in the range of losing the ability to fit decent information without vertical scrolling, or zooming out uncomfortably far.
If 25:9 goes anywhere in the next few years, and goes any higher vertical res than 1080, I'll eat my socks. Chances are, they'd shrink it vertically to fit, like 2500x900 pixels.
Remember, 16:10 is verboten, it's all 16:9 nowadays. There are some 3840x2160 displays in production, but they're all large format 40"+ and run over 50k USD.
I've got 2 of those IBMs in front of me right now, and yes the pixels are still very visible. Most of the text on my screen is drawn with 1 pixel wide strokes, the same as on any chunky-pixel display, and it's still just as clear & fully readable.
Computer monitors have been following television resolutions & aspect ratios. We need height back in our displays for all the portrait document-oriented stuff that we spend the majority of our times with on computers (emails, webpages, word processing, heck even board-based casual games). I'm sick of seeing my interactive options through a narrow slit.
The whole 1080p thing has obliterated decent computer monitor resolutions. I don't give a rat's buttock about TVs and BluRays and home theater setups and all that crap, but the faster the mainstream media tech goes beyond 1080p, the faster I can have cheap high resolution computer monitors again.
1080 is low resolution garbage when it comes to desktop displays.
We don't ever convert from heat energy to electricity in standard power production. It's always heat to mechanical energy to electrical energy.
Thermocouples do directly convert heat to electricity, but they're typically not for power generation (except in specialty scenarios like satellites), they're mostly for sensors.