It think the author is wrong in thinking this involves some new format/tech (HDR10/DV/DTS).
Sounds to me more like a marketing program disguised in techo-babble, which would compete with THX,.
I think you're right. I think the author is also confusing the new VESA DisplayHDR certifications with the format HDR10.
You don't need to do that anymore. Your equipment just needs to support ARC (audio return channel). You have video going directly to your tv and the audio is sent from the tv to to the receiver over HDMI. ARC also let's the tv send commands to the receiver to turn it on and off and adjust the volume so you only need your tv remote.
That's based on the false premise that the maximum resolution someone can distinguish is a 1:1 mapping of their cone density.
Sharp did an experiment and proved people can discern the difference in images well beyond that.
Eyes receive much more information than a 1:1 mapping. One pixel isn't perceived by a single cone, it's being seen by multiple rods and cones and the brain does the math. And there are 2 eyes doing this in conjunction.
I don't think you even understand it. The vulnerability is that if you connect to a compromised wifi connection and attempt to manually update the app (there is no automatic update) they can spoof the update with their own malicious update.
If someone uninstalls then searches the web to re-download it using compromised wifi they could be taken to a fake site serving malware. So if someone is naive enough to trust a malicious wifi connection they're even more at risk with this exploit being made public. This doesn't really help anyone, it's just a PR attack by Google.
Productivity of what? You're trying to link a bunch of vague, unsourced statistics for some sort of class warfare propaganda. Are you trying to say quality of life has decreased? Because I would say the opposite. Quality of life has more than doubled. Everything is safer, cheaper, and just better compared to 40 years ago. Internet, cell phones, tvs, transportation is much safer and more comfortable. For the average person life 40 years ago is crap in comparison with today.
The same people poo pooing iot are the same people that poo pooed smartphones when they were new.
Once it becomes more mainstream they'll realize all of the conveniences they're missing out on and get it too.
You're not free so long as somebody controls your access to food, shelter, healthcare, education and transportation (the latter being required to access the former). Until you have reliable access to those things then you're one bad year (or month if you're 40% of Americans) away from disaster and doing whatever anyone tells you to get those things. You're what's referred to as a Wage Slave.
Your definition of freedom is extremely short sighted. All of those things have to be produced somehow. They aren't free and can't be given to everyone for nothing. So in order for everyone to have them you have to force someone else to create them. You're enslaving someone else. You're doing the exact thing you're claiming to fight against.
Why wouldn't Bernie support something like this? Nothing he's done shows he values personal liberty. He thinks plebeians are too stupid to make their own choices and need to be told what to do.
No. Your argument is wrong. Maybe what you're trying to get at is that the further away you get from the golden ratio the less useful those pixels are, but that is far from what you said. Once you get taller than the golden ratio it's the same issue.
16:10 was a much better aspect ratio than 16:9 for just about any workload - including movies.
It's all about marketing - the less square the aspect ratio, the fewer pixels you get for the same width (e.g. 1920x1200 vs. 1920x1080, or 3840x2400 vs. 3840x2160) and diagonal size, the two main metrics by which screens are marketed. The manufacturer gets to sell you fewer pixels, resulting in better yields, and less surface area, resulting in lower cost to them, all while getting to charge you a higher price because the numbers look the same or better.
This is in part why now, after a few years of manufacturers having shaped the market by making 16:9 the norm, we are now seeing an increase in ultra-wide screens which take this to the next level.
Your number of pixels reason is stupid. You can use it to argue the opposite. The shorter the aspect ratio gets the fewer pixels you get for the same height.
If you think back end development is more complex it's because you don't really know much about front end development. Front end isn't just html and css anymore. A lot of things have been moved from server side to client side JavaScript. It depends on the application you're building but either one can be more complex.
Every word of what you just said was wrong.
There's tons of 4k content on Netflix and Amazon and every new movie on blu ray is in 4k. And you can hook a PC up to it and game in 4k. Even the newest consoles can game in 4k now.
I'm not sure what your vision is, but I can easily see the individual pixels on my 65" 4k OLED up close to the screen.
Sharp even did an experiment and proved anyone with 20-20 vision can see the differences between resolutions and would benefit from resolutions much higher than 8k. There are diminishing returns, but saying higher resolution is pointless is just wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Will it though? It seems more like putting a bandage on a tumor to me.
It's probably OLED considering the standard Rift is OLED.
Has newegg said how that code got on their site?
EA has their own service called Origin. They don't sell games on Steam.
It think the author is wrong in thinking this involves some new format/tech (HDR10/DV/DTS). Sounds to me more like a marketing program disguised in techo-babble, which would compete with THX, .
I think you're right. I think the author is also confusing the new VESA DisplayHDR certifications with the format HDR10.
You don't need to do that anymore. Your equipment just needs to support ARC (audio return channel). You have video going directly to your tv and the audio is sent from the tv to to the receiver over HDMI. ARC also let's the tv send commands to the receiver to turn it on and off and adjust the volume so you only need your tv remote.
That's based on the false premise that the maximum resolution someone can distinguish is a 1:1 mapping of their cone density.
Sharp did an experiment and proved people can discern the difference in images well beyond that.
Eyes receive much more information than a 1:1 mapping. One pixel isn't perceived by a single cone, it's being seen by multiple rods and cones and the brain does the math. And there are 2 eyes doing this in conjunction.
I don't think you even understand it. The vulnerability is that if you connect to a compromised wifi connection and attempt to manually update the app (there is no automatic update) they can spoof the update with their own malicious update.
If someone uninstalls then searches the web to re-download it using compromised wifi they could be taken to a fake site serving malware. So if someone is naive enough to trust a malicious wifi connection they're even more at risk with this exploit being made public. This doesn't really help anyone, it's just a PR attack by Google.
Many people use that road though.
Productivity of what? You're trying to link a bunch of vague, unsourced statistics for some sort of class warfare propaganda. Are you trying to say quality of life has decreased? Because I would say the opposite. Quality of life has more than doubled. Everything is safer, cheaper, and just better compared to 40 years ago. Internet, cell phones, tvs, transportation is much safer and more comfortable. For the average person life 40 years ago is crap in comparison with today.
OLED looks a million times better than LCD, even after 3 years of use.
The same people poo pooing iot are the same people that poo pooed smartphones when they were new. Once it becomes more mainstream they'll realize all of the conveniences they're missing out on and get it too.
Most laptops from the last 5 years support 2 or 3 screens. They're fine for development, although I prefer my desktop pc and 8 monitors.
You're not free so long as somebody controls your access to food, shelter, healthcare, education and transportation (the latter being required to access the former). Until you have reliable access to those things then you're one bad year (or month if you're 40% of Americans) away from disaster and doing whatever anyone tells you to get those things. You're what's referred to as a Wage Slave.
Your definition of freedom is extremely short sighted. All of those things have to be produced somehow. They aren't free and can't be given to everyone for nothing. So in order for everyone to have them you have to force someone else to create them. You're enslaving someone else. You're doing the exact thing you're claiming to fight against.
Why wouldn't Bernie support something like this? Nothing he's done shows he values personal liberty. He thinks plebeians are too stupid to make their own choices and need to be told what to do.
You can team up with your friends playing on another system.
The chicken or the egg. Someone has to start supporting it.
No. Your argument is wrong. Maybe what you're trying to get at is that the further away you get from the golden ratio the less useful those pixels are, but that is far from what you said. Once you get taller than the golden ratio it's the same issue.
16:10 was a much better aspect ratio than 16:9 for just about any workload - including movies. It's all about marketing - the less square the aspect ratio, the fewer pixels you get for the same width (e.g. 1920x1200 vs. 1920x1080, or 3840x2400 vs. 3840x2160) and diagonal size, the two main metrics by which screens are marketed. The manufacturer gets to sell you fewer pixels, resulting in better yields, and less surface area, resulting in lower cost to them, all while getting to charge you a higher price because the numbers look the same or better. This is in part why now, after a few years of manufacturers having shaped the market by making 16:9 the norm, we are now seeing an increase in ultra-wide screens which take this to the next level.
Your number of pixels reason is stupid. You can use it to argue the opposite. The shorter the aspect ratio gets the fewer pixels you get for the same height.
If you think back end development is more complex it's because you don't really know much about front end development. Front end isn't just html and css anymore. A lot of things have been moved from server side to client side JavaScript. It depends on the application you're building but either one can be more complex.
They might not be slowing down specific traffic but instead just have a poor connection to those popular services and it gets saturated.
When you account for cost of living Hawaii is actually the poorest state in the United States.
Why would anyone pay for it when you can get any Youtube Red video for free by replacing the "you" with "red" in the url?
Turn your phone off before you leave home.
Every word of what you just said was wrong.
There's tons of 4k content on Netflix and Amazon and every new movie on blu ray is in 4k. And you can hook a PC up to it and game in 4k. Even the newest consoles can game in 4k now.
I'm not sure what your vision is, but I can easily see the individual pixels on my 65" 4k OLED up close to the screen.
Sharp even did an experiment and proved anyone with 20-20 vision can see the differences between resolutions and would benefit from resolutions much higher than 8k. There are diminishing returns, but saying higher resolution is pointless is just wrong.