The lady in this story lives 80 miles away from work.
Even if there was a direct, private road from her driveway to her office and she got to drive at 80MPH the entire time, it'd take her an hour.
Look, I live less than 20 miles from where I work, and if I took public transportation it'd take me almost as long as it takes her - between 3-4 hours. And I would be *very* limited on when I could leave because buses only run by my house on a very limited schedule. And I live in Minnesota, so there'd be a lot of waiting outside in the Minnesota winter.
Yeah, public transportation is crap a lot of places (San Francisco NOT being one of them - and she's lucky she hooks up to that one)! and stories like these are hardly news.
Anyone in my neighbourhood who USED to have open had mysteriously produced messages telling their owners to lock them down. I believe the printers were the funniest ones.
There are no commercial entities anywhere near me that would have an open network. Definitely not within any kind of range of my house. Unless that TV has a robotic arm that can plug itself into an ethernet port, it ain't happening.
The remote it came with never had batteries put in it.
The TV was never allowed to connect to my network.
I'm pretty sure it's never spied on me.
And before you ask why I got a Smart TV if I'm never going to use those features - it's impossible to find a TV without those features that still had other features I wanted. Luckily the smart features are pretty easy to disable. Or never enable in the first place.
Look, I love technology as much as the next guy (possibly much more when the next guy isn't on slashdot), but... I mean... really?
Roads and cars do not need GPS to function. They have existed in more-or-less the same form for decades and have not really changed since GPS became mainstream.
I usually absolutely disagree with alarmists that say technology is going to "ruin" people, but seriously, if people consider being able to drive your car to a different state without GPS to be "an accomplishment", I think we have a problem.
A few years back I went to a foreign country and my GPS stopped working. I somehow managed to navigate by looking at a map and planning ahead and then reading road signs. I guess I'm friggin batman.
When you say this guy "plans to" do anything, the correct wording should be "says he's going to".
He's been saying he's going to do that head transplant for a while now, never providing ANY details on HOW he's going to do it. He's basically just talking.
I hear what you're saying, but I'm not talking about it being close to the same performance. It's literally the same exact CPU model that was the top model 2 years ago. That's some crazy stagnation there.
But, going back to what you say, that reinforces my point. AMD hasn't done anything in the CPU arena in years. Why would Intel have to innovate? We need a competitor to nip at Intel's heels and get them moving again, and ideally it'd be great if Intel and AMD can race each other for supremacy forever because then we get constant innovation.
I've only ever built one Intel-based PC in... well, ever since I got a... ugh, was it Cyrus? Something... CPU back in the '90s (: I built an Intel-based desktop about 5 years ago because I wanted to try and Hackintosh it, and at the time AMD couldn't do that.
I have to admit, that desktop still kicks butt. But it was built to last. No way could it run any current game in any decent quality, even if I stuck a GTX1080 in it.
I'm talking about 2 years ago, plus I'm talking about price/performance for a specific point, really, Either way, the price/performance thing is not linear - 50% higher price won't give you 50% higher performance.
I built myself a gaming PC about two years ago. I've been an AMD supported for decades, so I went with the best CPU AMD was offering at the time. Two years later, it's still the best CPU AMD offers.
I remember the heyday where AMD actually overtook Intel. Their CPUs were actually better and cheaper. That's no longer the case, but (at least when I built my gaming rig) I was not willing to pay 50%+ more for maybe 10% higher performance, so it was still AMD for me.
The important thing, though, is that we need competition in order to spur innovation. Before AMD started nipping at Intel's heels, it was all about the MHz (and who could get to GHz first). After that, we started seeing CPUs with more cores and better threading and all the good stuff. I hope Ryzen makes Intel very worried - worried enough that they innovate the hell out of their CPUs. I also hope Ryzen makes AMD enough money that they can continue to innovate, and continue to compete with Intel. Because when that happens, it is we the consumers who win.
Yes I've been looking for a reason to get a new TV even though there's nothing really wrong with the Panasonic one I have now. And yes I've been looking at a Samsung TV and yes I know the only thing Samsung does better than electronics is corporate corruption, but you know what? Shut up, that's what.
I've not had much of a "that's not black enough" problem. Maybe because I never watch TV in complete darkness. Nor have I had any audio sync issues that weren't due to a bad video file... but I don't let the TV handle the audio....and I need to start researching 4K sets...
I looked into that. Those are insanely rare. And expensive (: I'll just be careful for now. Or look into how to convert DFF files to something useful again (:
> What they should have done instead of SACD is make plain old DVD audio universal, and ALL optical decks capable of reading both CD and DVD.
They did. It was called DVD-A. Worked on any DVD player. Obviously not a CD player, but if that had become popular they'd probably have added that functionality.
Slashdot Mirror
This would have been useful information 20 or so years ago...
The lady in this story lives 80 miles away from work.
Even if there was a direct, private road from her driveway to her office and she got to drive at 80MPH the entire time, it'd take her an hour.
Look, I live less than 20 miles from where I work, and if I took public transportation it'd take me almost as long as it takes her - between 3-4 hours. And I would be *very* limited on when I could leave because buses only run by my house on a very limited schedule. And I live in Minnesota, so there'd be a lot of waiting outside in the Minnesota winter.
Yeah, public transportation is crap a lot of places (San Francisco NOT being one of them - and she's lucky she hooks up to that one)! and stories like these are hardly news.
Anyone in my neighbourhood who USED to have open had mysteriously produced messages telling their owners to lock them down. I believe the printers were the funniest ones.
There are no commercial entities anywhere near me that would have an open network. Definitely not within any kind of range of my house. Unless that TV has a robotic arm that can plug itself into an ethernet port, it ain't happening.
Good luck. There aren't any in my area.
(Plus I can always put the TV's MAC in my DHCP server and set it's IP to 127.0.0.1).
I have a Samsung SmartTV.
The remote it came with never had batteries put in it.
The TV was never allowed to connect to my network.
I'm pretty sure it's never spied on me.
And before you ask why I got a Smart TV if I'm never going to use those features - it's impossible to find a TV without those features that still had other features I wanted. Luckily the smart features are pretty easy to disable. Or never enable in the first place.
Look, I love technology as much as the next guy (possibly much more when the next guy isn't on slashdot), but... I mean... really?
Roads and cars do not need GPS to function. They have existed in more-or-less the same form for decades and have not really changed since GPS became mainstream.
I usually absolutely disagree with alarmists that say technology is going to "ruin" people, but seriously, if people consider being able to drive your car to a different state without GPS to be "an accomplishment", I think we have a problem.
A few years back I went to a foreign country and my GPS stopped working. I somehow managed to navigate by looking at a map and planning ahead and then reading road signs. I guess I'm friggin batman.
When you say this guy "plans to" do anything, the correct wording should be "says he's going to".
He's been saying he's going to do that head transplant for a while now, never providing ANY details on HOW he's going to do it. He's basically just talking.
Yeah, this article is about the new/upcoming AMD CPUs (:
Yeah, and that made Intel sit on their laurels and not really bother. I'm hoping this means more competition!
Oh, there were some questionable decisions, to be sure (remember Slot-A CPUs?)
I hear what you're saying, but I'm not talking about it being close to the same performance. It's literally the same exact CPU model that was the top model 2 years ago. That's some crazy stagnation there.
But, going back to what you say, that reinforces my point. AMD hasn't done anything in the CPU arena in years. Why would Intel have to innovate? We need a competitor to nip at Intel's heels and get them moving again, and ideally it'd be great if Intel and AMD can race each other for supremacy forever because then we get constant innovation.
I've only ever built one Intel-based PC in... well, ever since I got a... ugh, was it Cyrus? Something... CPU back in the '90s (: I built an Intel-based desktop about 5 years ago because I wanted to try and Hackintosh it, and at the time AMD couldn't do that.
I have to admit, that desktop still kicks butt. But it was built to last. No way could it run any current game in any decent quality, even if I stuck a GTX1080 in it.
I'm talking about 2 years ago, plus I'm talking about price/performance for a specific point, really, Either way, the price/performance thing is not linear - 50% higher price won't give you 50% higher performance.
I built myself a gaming PC about two years ago. I've been an AMD supported for decades, so I went with the best CPU AMD was offering at the time. Two years later, it's still the best CPU AMD offers.
I remember the heyday where AMD actually overtook Intel. Their CPUs were actually better and cheaper. That's no longer the case, but (at least when I built my gaming rig) I was not willing to pay 50%+ more for maybe 10% higher performance, so it was still AMD for me.
The important thing, though, is that we need competition in order to spur innovation. Before AMD started nipping at Intel's heels, it was all about the MHz (and who could get to GHz first). After that, we started seeing CPUs with more cores and better threading and all the good stuff. I hope Ryzen makes Intel very worried - worried enough that they innovate the hell out of their CPUs. I also hope Ryzen makes AMD enough money that they can continue to innovate, and continue to compete with Intel. Because when that happens, it is we the consumers who win.
My TV's too old to have that. And I abhor "smart" functionality. I realise it might be unavoidable but I'm not going to use any of those features.
That said, that /is/ ridiculous.
Dammit, Panasonic. Now I need to get a new TV.
Yes I've been looking for a reason to get a new TV even though there's nothing really wrong with the Panasonic one I have now. And yes I've been looking at a Samsung TV and yes I know the only thing Samsung does better than electronics is corporate corruption, but you know what? Shut up, that's what.
How do you incorporate support for something that doesn't exist yet? That's like complaining that regular DVD players can't play Blu-Ray!
Go ahead and set it up.
I guaranty I'd notice the 5.1 surround sound over plain stereo, though.
And, again, if the medium would have become popular, no doubt it'd have been incorporated into anything that plays optical discs of that form-factor.
Yes, rly. Even according to the link you just sent. That "study" claims people can't tell the difference, not that the difference doesn't exist.
I've been saying my next TV will be a projector for a decade, but it just never happens (price/capabilities never end up matching).
I'd never seen a DVD player that couldn't play DVD-A.
I really hope that's a 100cm TV (:
I've not had much of a "that's not black enough" problem. Maybe because I never watch TV in complete darkness. Nor have I had any audio sync issues that weren't due to a bad video file... but I don't let the TV handle the audio. ...and I need to start researching 4K sets...
I looked into that. Those are insanely rare. And expensive (: I'll just be careful for now. Or look into how to convert DFF files to something useful again (:
> What they should have done instead of SACD is make plain old DVD audio universal, and ALL optical decks capable of reading both CD and DVD.
They did. It was called DVD-A. Worked on any DVD player. Obviously not a CD player, but if that had become popular they'd probably have added that functionality.