The frame-area and screen-size really were the most important aspects of IMAX. It was massively larger than the Todd-AO 70mm film frame, and the tall screen that filled the entire range-of-vision was the thing that was able to fool the mind. IMAX 70mm has roughly an equivalent to 12K resolution. Compared to that, "Digital IMAX" is a joke, at somewhere between 2K and 3K, the higher end only if you believe the hype. All of the other subtle aspects of theatre requirements aren't the same in Digital IMAX; to support that would be too expensive for theatre owners (who mostly profit from concession sales.) It really was a straight up weakening of the name. But oh well; I doubt it's going to last in its current form for very long.
The advancement is just that the US didn't previously care about turbocharging gasoline vehicles or light-duty trucks & SUVs. Europe has been into it for ages because gas/diesel is so much more expensive there. When demand finally clicked in the US, Ford went to the Germans and had them tell us how it's all done. So yeah, not really an advancement unless you think domestically. Globally, it's just catch-up.
I'm under the impression that a major reason why light-truck mileage hasn't improved has been economic reasons. Most of the demand for light-trucks was shifted over to SUVs for tax reasons. Other countries have light-trucks but, for the US market, last I checked, no one is making much of anything for quite awhile now. And there's no incentive to work towards higher efficiency. If there was a demand for a light truck with higher efficiency, as you sort of hint, one of the major possibilities is in weight reduction by changing to different alloys or composites. But since pretty much no one has made a high-volume production automobile using a composite chassis, and making that happen would require tens of billions of dollars and many more years of development; I'm pretty sure that light trucks in the US are not gonna be the first category slated for that experiment.
Try to understand, the Journalist only mentioned "Hey this could make stuff smaller/lighter/thinner" because he is a twit who is trying to explain the potential benefits of information he got in a press release he didn't understand about a paper he didn't read to a bunch of other twits that the publisher presumes is gonna be the reader-base. The fact that processing can be offloaded to the memory has nothing to do with the ability to make better wearable tech, and the original authors never suggested anything even close to this; because the original authors aren't complete morons.
This summary got me all excited for the idea of a company being brave enough to decide that thickness is not as critical as Apple marketing tries to push, only to reveal that it is a design compromise needed to support a completely useless feature. It's fantastic to support 4k displays on a laptop, but a 4k integrated monitor on anything but a mammoth laptop serves no benefit. All things equal, the only way to visibly see the difference on a 15'' laptop screen is to crank up the brightness and jam your eye so close to the screen that you're now awkwardly hunched over, and can only see a tiny portion of the screen. Because the typical use-case of laptops is in using the integrated keyboard, you are bound by the ergonomic fact that the screen is going to be a comfortable arm-length from the eyes. Save 4k resolution for things like VR headsets and large external monitors. And the only time you're going to be using either, you're also gonna have an outlet, so it doesn't matter. You'd only want battery powered 4k if someone actually managed to get wireless display standardized and working well, or if VR takes off in such a huge way that we're all strapping computers to our back and walking around in augmented reality. Neither of these things are going to happen in the next few years, so there's zero point in buying a laptop that's supposedly future-proofed in that manner.
Slashdot comment sections teeter on a bit of a razor-edge, and have particularly-so for a couple years now (I think Dice coming in and CommanderTaco leaving are two commonly mentioned causes for this shift). If people don't move in quick and point out major flaws, topics of this sort can easily turn into a board full of people who didn't RTFA circlejerking each-other.
Some companies failed. Other companies were Tesla Motors, and solar roofs, and the first US nuclear power plant in decades. And even the companies that did end up failing, they still gave lots of Americans jobs in fields like research, engineering, logistics, and management even if they didn't turn out to be life-long careers. The nonviable ventures are _supposed_ to fold; and you tend to only know which venture is nonviable by spending money and doing research. I'm not saying it was the greatest job creator or greatest environmental effort ever pushed by a president, but it was a more fruitful effort than you're describing.
Sort of, only completely different. One is actually enthusiastically taking credit, and the other was a gaffe. Trump explicitly took credit for this deal, and has since on separate occasions repeated taking credit. Gore said a one-time minor gaffe in wording ("During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.") during an interview answering a question that had him rolling off a list of his domestic initiatives history. He was trying to talk about the so-called Gore-bill that funded computing research and technology in 1991. That bill that Gore got through congress helped to pay for the development of Mosaic, the first web-browser and precursor to Netscape Navigator. So yeah, if not for that money, we might all be using that goofy French Minitel system and everything would be glued to the phone company.
I've been seeing this whole Obama-golfing circlejerk more and more lately, and this comment finally made me get around to looking it up. According to CBS and many other sources, he played his 300th round of golf in office on August 7th. When you do the math on that, on average, he plays a round a little less than once every 9 days. Of course it doesn't really work that way, he plays more often when on vacation. So yeah, the guy does apparently enjoy golfing, but the whole "too busy golfing to accomplish anything" narrative is not even remotely deserved. Presidents tend to have close to 80-hour work-weeks, and golfing is one of the few times a president is able to go outside, and the golf-cart is closest most presidents are able to get to driving a car. Eisenhower apparently played twice as much Golf as Obama has, and Ike didn't even have a Blackberry.
Obama has also taken fewer vacation days than most recent presidents; although it's a bit of a weird concept. All presidents still work a ton on these vacations. So instead of "vacation", much of it is "same job, different scenery". There are lots of records that prove all this, for all presidents.
Does Amazon know? I feel like Amazon's appropriate entities know a thing or two about what goes into shipping at this point. I tend to trust that they've done the research and crunched the numbers and concluded with a sufficient level of confidence that they could become a competitor in the broker game in a manner that is lucrative for them. And who says anything about customers and drivers communicating with each other directly any more than they did in the past? Alexa will take care of all of that. Amazon has the engineering power to make a service that does way more that merely match up client and driver.
I guess it depends on how far they're extending the metaphor, and I'm too lazy to read TFA, but to me, Uber for trucking sounds more like "Let's hire freelance non-union truckers and refuse to call them employees so that until the whole autonomous thing is hashed out we can undercut the crap out of UPS and FedEx."
Hold up, NAFTA went into effect in 1994. Your dad was making $100k/yr in 1994 money? I'm aware that hazmat drivers get a bit extra, and they certainly should, but, was he doing 100-hour work weeks or something?
When Trump talked about draining the swamp, I presumed that Trump supporters and non-supporters alike knew that this meant he'd replace them with industry crooks. When he said he knew "the best people"....he's not exactly hanging out with university professors...He's a businessman. He knows businessmen. And of course you gotta keep some politicians, that's just politics to keep congress from eating him alive. But now I'm seeing all these trumpers being like, 'hey wait, what?'
That could certainly be a stopgap solution. But pros want something that "just works", so it does make sense to urge the big manufacturers to officially support such a feature right out of the box.
I really like my Nikon. It's only about two years old, and I made sure to get one with all the bells and whistles, so it still works delightfully for my needs. But if one of the major SLR manufacturers built in decent encryption, I do believe this would make me go out and buy a new one. And if it isn't Nikon, I'd still make the switch and get all new lenses for it.
That said, if they gave the employees $30M in cash bonuses, they'd be down $30M, but since they donated $30M in google electronics, that's the retail value. So in reality, that only costs them about $15M. It's still all pretty tiny amounts compared to Alphabet's revenue, so whatever.
Straight from the tax-code, 102(c)(1): "shall not exclude from gross income any amount transferred by or for an employer to, or for the benefit of, an employee." in other words, the employee pays taxes on "gifts" from employers. https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
No, they don't. When an employee gives a real gift, they add it's value to the employee's W-2 as unexpected income. If the employee donates the gift, they employee can now deduct it. If you donate in an employee's name, you don't add it to the employee's W-2, so there's nothing for the employee to deduct. If they were to report it as income, then everyone who doesn't itemize would get shafted, being taxed for income that they never saw or had the freedom to use as they pleased.
Slashdot Mirror
The frame-area and screen-size really were the most important aspects of IMAX. It was massively larger than the Todd-AO 70mm film frame, and the tall screen that filled the entire range-of-vision was the thing that was able to fool the mind. IMAX 70mm has roughly an equivalent to 12K resolution. Compared to that, "Digital IMAX" is a joke, at somewhere between 2K and 3K, the higher end only if you believe the hype. All of the other subtle aspects of theatre requirements aren't the same in Digital IMAX; to support that would be too expensive for theatre owners (who mostly profit from concession sales.) It really was a straight up weakening of the name. But oh well; I doubt it's going to last in its current form for very long.
The advancement is just that the US didn't previously care about turbocharging gasoline vehicles or light-duty trucks & SUVs. Europe has been into it for ages because gas/diesel is so much more expensive there. When demand finally clicked in the US, Ford went to the Germans and had them tell us how it's all done. So yeah, not really an advancement unless you think domestically. Globally, it's just catch-up.
I'm under the impression that a major reason why light-truck mileage hasn't improved has been economic reasons. Most of the demand for light-trucks was shifted over to SUVs for tax reasons. Other countries have light-trucks but, for the US market, last I checked, no one is making much of anything for quite awhile now. And there's no incentive to work towards higher efficiency. If there was a demand for a light truck with higher efficiency, as you sort of hint, one of the major possibilities is in weight reduction by changing to different alloys or composites. But since pretty much no one has made a high-volume production automobile using a composite chassis, and making that happen would require tens of billions of dollars and many more years of development; I'm pretty sure that light trucks in the US are not gonna be the first category slated for that experiment.
Try to understand, the Journalist only mentioned "Hey this could make stuff smaller/lighter/thinner" because he is a twit who is trying to explain the potential benefits of information he got in a press release he didn't understand about a paper he didn't read to a bunch of other twits that the publisher presumes is gonna be the reader-base. The fact that processing can be offloaded to the memory has nothing to do with the ability to make better wearable tech, and the original authors never suggested anything even close to this; because the original authors aren't complete morons.
This summary got me all excited for the idea of a company being brave enough to decide that thickness is not as critical as Apple marketing tries to push, only to reveal that it is a design compromise needed to support a completely useless feature. It's fantastic to support 4k displays on a laptop, but a 4k integrated monitor on anything but a mammoth laptop serves no benefit. All things equal, the only way to visibly see the difference on a 15'' laptop screen is to crank up the brightness and jam your eye so close to the screen that you're now awkwardly hunched over, and can only see a tiny portion of the screen. Because the typical use-case of laptops is in using the integrated keyboard, you are bound by the ergonomic fact that the screen is going to be a comfortable arm-length from the eyes. Save 4k resolution for things like VR headsets and large external monitors. And the only time you're going to be using either, you're also gonna have an outlet, so it doesn't matter. You'd only want battery powered 4k if someone actually managed to get wireless display standardized and working well, or if VR takes off in such a huge way that we're all strapping computers to our back and walking around in augmented reality. Neither of these things are going to happen in the next few years, so there's zero point in buying a laptop that's supposedly future-proofed in that manner.
This page hasn't been updated since last year. Beyond that, the list is exactly as long as I said it was....
Slashdot comment sections teeter on a bit of a razor-edge, and have particularly-so for a couple years now (I think Dice coming in and CommanderTaco leaving are two commonly mentioned causes for this shift). If people don't move in quick and point out major flaws, topics of this sort can easily turn into a board full of people who didn't RTFA circlejerking each-other.
Some companies failed. Other companies were Tesla Motors, and solar roofs, and the first US nuclear power plant in decades. And even the companies that did end up failing, they still gave lots of Americans jobs in fields like research, engineering, logistics, and management even if they didn't turn out to be life-long careers. The nonviable ventures are _supposed_ to fold; and you tend to only know which venture is nonviable by spending money and doing research. I'm not saying it was the greatest job creator or greatest environmental effort ever pushed by a president, but it was a more fruitful effort than you're describing.
Sort of, only completely different. One is actually enthusiastically taking credit, and the other was a gaffe. Trump explicitly took credit for this deal, and has since on separate occasions repeated taking credit. Gore said a one-time minor gaffe in wording ("During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.") during an interview answering a question that had him rolling off a list of his domestic initiatives history. He was trying to talk about the so-called Gore-bill that funded computing research and technology in 1991. That bill that Gore got through congress helped to pay for the development of Mosaic, the first web-browser and precursor to Netscape Navigator. So yeah, if not for that money, we might all be using that goofy French Minitel system and everything would be glued to the phone company.
Obama has also taken fewer vacation days than most recent presidents; although it's a bit of a weird concept. All presidents still work a ton on these vacations. So instead of "vacation", much of it is "same job, different scenery". There are lots of records that prove all this, for all presidents.
Thanks! Now that I think about it, how did health benefits work when in that situation (particulary, pre-obama-care)?
No, no I'd never ask that. That's just about the stupidest question I've ever heard.
Does Amazon know? I feel like Amazon's appropriate entities know a thing or two about what goes into shipping at this point. I tend to trust that they've done the research and crunched the numbers and concluded with a sufficient level of confidence that they could become a competitor in the broker game in a manner that is lucrative for them. And who says anything about customers and drivers communicating with each other directly any more than they did in the past? Alexa will take care of all of that. Amazon has the engineering power to make a service that does way more that merely match up client and driver.
Certainly. But the current middlemen don't see much difference between being eliminated and being replaced. It's still "being cut-out" for them.
I guess it depends on how far they're extending the metaphor, and I'm too lazy to read TFA, but to me, Uber for trucking sounds more like "Let's hire freelance non-union truckers and refuse to call them employees so that until the whole autonomous thing is hashed out we can undercut the crap out of UPS and FedEx."
Hold up, NAFTA went into effect in 1994. Your dad was making $100k/yr in 1994 money? I'm aware that hazmat drivers get a bit extra, and they certainly should, but, was he doing 100-hour work weeks or something?
When Trump talked about draining the swamp, I presumed that Trump supporters and non-supporters alike knew that this meant he'd replace them with industry crooks. When he said he knew "the best people"....he's not exactly hanging out with university professors...He's a businessman. He knows businessmen. And of course you gotta keep some politicians, that's just politics to keep congress from eating him alive. But now I'm seeing all these trumpers being like, 'hey wait, what?'
Plenty of people bothered to ask that. Trump might not be a politician, but he's still great at replying to questions with non-answers.
Ya know, calling anyone who doesn't see things the way you do a "fucking idiot" is a rather ineffective way to get your point across.
That could certainly be a stopgap solution. But pros want something that "just works", so it does make sense to urge the big manufacturers to officially support such a feature right out of the box.
I really like my Nikon. It's only about two years old, and I made sure to get one with all the bells and whistles, so it still works delightfully for my needs. But if one of the major SLR manufacturers built in decent encryption, I do believe this would make me go out and buy a new one. And if it isn't Nikon, I'd still make the switch and get all new lenses for it.
That said, if they gave the employees $30M in cash bonuses, they'd be down $30M, but since they donated $30M in google electronics, that's the retail value. So in reality, that only costs them about $15M. It's still all pretty tiny amounts compared to Alphabet's revenue, so whatever.
Straight from the tax-code, 102(c)(1): "shall not exclude from gross income any amount transferred by or for an employer to, or for the benefit of, an employee." in other words, the employee pays taxes on "gifts" from employers. https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
No, they don't. When an employee gives a real gift, they add it's value to the employee's W-2 as unexpected income. If the employee donates the gift, they employee can now deduct it. If you donate in an employee's name, you don't add it to the employee's W-2, so there's nothing for the employee to deduct. If they were to report it as income, then everyone who doesn't itemize would get shafted, being taxed for income that they never saw or had the freedom to use as they pleased.
Giving $30M of Google products to schools is basically tax-deductable advertising.